Judges can take immigration jeopardy into account when crafting criminal sentences — a privilege that doesn't apply to Canadians

[CdnFox]

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jamie-sarkonak-canadas-criminal-sentencing-discounts-for-foreigners-are-unfair

Canada's criminal sentencing discounts for non-citizens are unfair

 

Non-citizens who commit crimes in Canada shouldn’t get discounted sentences simply so they can avoid deportation. But in the Canadian justice system, that’s exactly what happens. We are beholden to judges who believe the rules apply differently to everyone.

It played out recently in Calgary. Twenty-five-year-old Rajbir Singh, currently here on a visitor’s permit after initially coming to Canada in 2018 to study, was out one night at the Back Alley night club when he groped an 18-year-old woman’s genitals under her skirt as she stood at the bar to buy a drink. When she turned around in shock, he did it again and walked away, according to the court ruling.

Singh was found guilty of sexual assault at trial. But he wasn’t convicted. Instead, in January, he was given a discharge by Justice A. J. Brown. The judge explained that a conviction would automatically result in deportation without a right to appeal, while a discharge wouldn’t generate a permanent criminal record and would preserve Singh’s right to appeal his deportation.

 

The judges have apparently given up all pretense of being on the side of the lawful public. They work exclusively for the benefit of the criminals at this point. This has got to change.

[suds]

My gut feeling is that the guy shouldn't be deported for doing something really stupid. So the Judge is giving him a second chance by the only means at his disposal. He still has to face an inadmissibility hearing with immigration but with the right to appeal.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, suds said:

My gut feeling is that the guy shouldn't be deported for doing something really stupid. So the Judge is giving him a second chance by the only means at his disposal. He still has to face an inadmissibility hearing with immigration but with the right to appeal.

Why are we wasting time on a sexual predator like that tho?  Seriously - the guy comes to our country and assaults a woman and  we're giving him another chance?  This wasn't some pat on the tush, this was grabbing her crotch under her dress.

Why would we want someone like that in our country?  Such a scumbag that he'd grab a girl like that and so stupid he doesn't realize he'll get in trouble for it? So we're going to be nice?

What's the logic behind that? How is this guy going to be a net contributor to our society? Especially if we're sending a message that 'don't worry - we won't let you get deported!"

[blackbird]

I would blame the immigration system for letting a lot of undesirables into Canada in the first place.  This is certainly not the first time.  The liberal-left is the problem.  Canada is not a sovereign country any more but is under strong influence of the U.N.

Edited May 7 by blackbird

[CdnFox]

Just now, blackbird said:

I would blame the immigration system for letting these kinds of people into Canada in the first place.  The liberal-left is the problem.  Canada is not a sovereign country any more but is under strong influence of the U.N.

Someone might be able to bluff their way in with any system - but for gods sake, if they DO sneak past and then sexually assault women - KICK THEM OUT!!! What the hell kind of answer is "he committed a crime but i won't convict him of a crime because that's not very nice".

[blackbird]

The fact that Canada is a member of the U.N. means it has signed on to and agrees to obey the U.N. declaration of human  rights.  That document gives foreign nationals rights if they come to Canada legally or illegally.  This means Canada is not a sovereign state, but is under the authority of the U.N.

This would seem to mean Canada is actually a post-national state.  Canada is more of an international state and has allowed itself to fall under the authority of the U.N. in some ways.

This would seem to explain why Canada signed UNDRIP, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People.  The ramifications of this are still unclear.  It could have far-reaching consequences and could cost non-natives billions or trillions? of dollars.

Canada has accumulated quite a large debt since Trudeau took power in 2015.  It would be interesting to know how much money it has cost Canadians to support the illegal migrants who came into Canada since 2015.  If you add up all the money Trudeau has thrown around the world and how much he has spend within Canada on questionable projects, it would be astounding.

Edited May 7 by blackbird

[CdnFox]

What i don't get is the left is always "TRUMP SAYS HE GRABS WOMEN BY THE P*SSY - HE SHOULD BE IN JAIL!"

But this guy actually DOES grab a woman by the p*ssy and it's like ' meh, cut him a break'.

[myata]

Question: what public function is not broken in Canada? Why could it be any other way, with no transparency; accountability and independent checks?

Edited May 7 by myata

[Nationalist]

This is typical Libbie BS.

Pixie-Dust and the Libbie hoard are actively trying to tear down the norms of our society.

"Build back better."

Here's their warped sense of "better". An immigrant sex offender is given a pass and allowed to stay to finger-fck more young ladies.

Those of you who agree and support this disgusting practice are promoting pure evil.

All these immigrants and refugees need to be rounded up and sent packing. 

[I am Groot]

21 hours ago, suds said:

My gut feeling is that the guy shouldn't be deported for doing something really stupid. So the Judge is giving him a second chance by the only means at his disposal. He still has to face an inadmissibility hearing with immigration but with the right to appeal.

Apparently, you have very low standards for immigrants. This is the problem with our immigration system; the low standards. We would be far, far, far better off with a lot fewer immigrants, but higher quality ones. We want people with high skills and also whose values line up with ours. We don't want to bring in potential rapists, thanks.

I'd love to see our crime statistics broken down by who is and who isn't born in Canada. And what region the foreigners came from. When Sweden used to do this their stats showed a huge proportion of their criminals were born elsewhere. So the liberals stopped keeping such statistics. I'm sure ours would be similar. It stands to reason if you bring over millions of people from violent places with violent cultures of intolerance and misogyny you're going to see an uptick in violence. Especially sexual assault.

 

17 hours ago, blackbird said:

The fact that Canada is a member of the U.N. means it has signed on to and agrees to obey the U.N. declaration of human  rights.  That document gives foreign nationals rights if they come to Canada legally or illegally.  This means Canada is not a sovereign state, but is under the authority of the U.N.

Yeaaaah, that's BS. We can deport anyone we want to. It's just that our judges seem to be specifically selected for their empathy and sympathy for violent criminals and their lack of interest in the damage done to victims or the danger the criminals pose to society.

 

 

Edited May 7 by I am Groot

[blackbird]

43 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Yeaaaah, that's BS. We can deport anyone we want to. It's just that our judges our specifically selected for their empathy and sympathy for violent criminals and their lack of interest in the damage done to victims or the danger the criminals pose to society.

Yes, that is true in one sense.  But judges are influenced by the U.N. UDHR.  Defense lawyers will use anything they can to win court cases and judges are under pressure to accept it.  Defense lawyers will try to take the focus off the crime and victim and make the accused appear to be the victim.

"

In Canada, human rights are protected by federal, provincial, and territorial laws. These laws are influenced by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948. Let’s explore how the UDHR impacts the legal system in Canada:

Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA):

The CHRA, enacted in 1977, protects people in Canada from discrimination when they are employed by or receive services from the federal government, First Nations governments, or private companies regulated by the federal government (such as banks, trucking companies, broadcasters, and telecommunications companies).

It covers grounds of discrimination such as race, age, and sexual orientation, and individuals can turn to the CHRA to seek protection against harassment or discrimination.

The CHRA is directly influenced by the UDHR, particularly its emphasis on equality and freedom from discrimination

unquote    - Wikipedia

Also see:

Canada’s surprising relationship to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights | The Walrus

It appears fundamental justice can be lost in this. 

 

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

We can deport anyone we want to.

Britain had a tradition of unwritten rights.  Canada tried to stick to that with its Constitution,  but eventually succumbed to the U.N. declaration of human rights.  Then in 1982 we adopted a written Charter of Rights.

From that the Supreme Court of Canada uses these documents to create new interpretations which Parliament has no say in.  We end up with a number of documents and rulings that set precedents.  This is a gold mine for defence lawyers.  They can pick and choose whatever they can find in documents and precedents to defend their clients.  So you can see how if an immigrant or non citizen is charged with some offence, lawyers can resort to all kinds of documents and precedents to claim their client is innocent or not criminally responsible.  If the accused is from another country, then there is always the claim that he didn't know all the laws of Canada and should not be therefore held responsible, especially for a first offence.

Deporting people is also one of those things that can be appealed and drag on for years.  There was a fugitive murder suspect, who apparently killed a number of people, from California years ago that appealed his extradition to the U.S.  His case dragged on in the appeal process for at least five years.  I wrote a letter to the Minister of Justice to ask what was going on with this. I don't write letters like that any more, but I was much younger then and naive.  The Minister actually answered my letter and told me everyone has the right to the appeal process.  

Edited May 7 by blackbird

[Moonbox]

18 hours ago, suds said:

My gut feeling is that the guy shouldn't be deported for doing something really stupid. So the Judge is giving him a second chance by the only means at his disposal. He still has to face an inadmissibility hearing with immigration but with the right to appeal.

I think if you are trying to immigrate to a new country, you should behave like a decent human being and be held to a higher standard.  If you're found guilty of something like this, you're gone.  There are plenty of people who want into Canada who won't sexually assault women, and we're better off having them here than creeps and perverts.  

[I am Groot]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

Deporting people is also one of those things that can be appealed and drag on for years.  There was a fugitive murder suspect, who apparently killed a number of people, from California years ago that appealed his extradition to the U.S.  His case dragged on in the appeal process for at least five years.  I wrote a letter to the Minister of Justice to ask what was going on with this. I don't write letters like that any more, but I was much younger then and naive.  The Minister actually answered my letter and told me everyone has the right to the appeal process.  

When the SC handed down the Singh decision years ago it said that we had to give a hearing to people, and an appeal process. It didn't say it had to last five years. It didn't say there had to be multiple appeals and appeals of the appeals. We need a new system to give people a hearing within a week or so of arrival, then one (1) appeal hearing, and then out the door.

That's assuming we didn't just reject them out of hand, which we should do for anyone who comes here from a safe third country. There were 86k asylum applications in the UK last year, and that's with people making their way across the channel in small boats. Why do we have almost twice as many? Because we're considered big suckers and people go through other safe countries to get here to apply. Anyone who comes here through the US, or any European country should be rejected out of hand.