tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post116197899142823757..comments2024-03-28T03:54:21.932-04:00Comments on Canadian Cynic: My theory, which is mine: American sex offenders in Canada.CChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11406057201126015750noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-1162079308286412202006-10-28T19:48:00.000-04:002006-10-28T19:48:00.000-04:00you know, Americans would react completely differe...you know, <A HREF="http://thiscanadian.typepad.com/this_canadian/2006/10/sex_crimes_in_t.html" REL="nofollow">Americans would react completely differently</A> if a <A HREF="http://thiscanadian.typepad.com/this_canadian/2006/10/three_years_pro.html" REL="nofollow">paedophile were dumped into GringoLand</A>... or would they?<BR/><BR/>they <A HREF="http://thiscanadian.typepad.com/this_canadian/2006/10/american_beauty.html" REL="nofollow">sure to like to scream without accomplishing much</A>, though, don't they?<BR/><BR/>They'd have <A HREF="http://thiscanadian.typepad.com/this_canadian/2006/09/boeing_wins_us_.html" REL="nofollow">installed sensors</A>, put the <A HREF="http://thiscanadian.typepad.com/this_canadian/2006/10/armed_us_coast_.html" REL="nofollow">Coast Guard on patrol</A>... they might even make it an election issue or begin to talk of how <A HREF="http://thiscanadian.typepad.com/this_canadian/2006/10/bush_family_val.html" REL="nofollow">Amerrrikun</A> groups of <A HREF="http://thiscanadian.typepad.com/this_canadian/2006/10/inside_the_secr.html" REL="nofollow">like-minded individuals</A> should begin to <A HREF="http://thiscanadian.typepad.com/this_canadian/2006/06/sudden_xenophob.html" REL="nofollow">stalk the Border</A> for <A HREF="http://thiscanadian.typepad.com/this_canadian/2006/10/dudes_a_canadia.html" REL="nofollow">wild-eyed Canadians</A>... <BR/><BR/>... wait a minute, they've started that already... <BR/><BR/>hum. Isn't the US LEADING THE WORLD in the Prison Industry?<BR/>I'm confused... <BR/><BR/><I>Spread Love...<BR/> ...but wear the Glove!</I><BR/><BR/><B>BlueBerry Pick'n</B><BR/>can be found @<BR/><A HREF="http://www.ThisCanadian.com" REL="nofollow">ThisCanadian</A><BR/><I>"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"</I>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-1162046233891968622006-10-28T10:37:00.000-04:002006-10-28T10:37:00.000-04:00Here's my objection - I really don't care if he se...Here's my objection - I really don't care if he serves his sentence here - that's fine with me. However, I believe he should be turned over to Corrections Canada for the duration.<BR/><BR/>There's a few problems with having him obliged to report to an American parole officer while serving his sentence outside the United States. This particular sentence essentially extended US jurisprudence into Canada. {Not something I'm terribly comfortable with}<BR/><BR/>We do have arrangements/conventions with the US which allow Canadians to serve their US sentences in the Canadian correctional system. Those should have been used. <BR/><BR/>The howling screech monkeys that have been worrying about this being a "dumping", and how this guy is a "threat" to Canada have missed the issue entirely.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-1162027005288603272006-10-28T05:16:00.000-04:002006-10-28T05:16:00.000-04:00"d in to" writes:"I agree almost completely. The d..."d in to" writes:<BR/><BR/>"<I>I agree almost completely. The disagreement has to do with your apparent allowance that the Government may decide to deport Watson if that is what it wants to do, as long as it doesn't take what the Americans did into account.</I>"<BR/><BR/>I'm guessing that we actually agree with one another here. Canada should <I>certainly</I> take into account Watson's conviction in the U.S. What it <I>shouldn't</I> factor in is the U.S.'s idiotic judgment to ban an American citizen from returning to the U.S. whenever he wants, regardless of his conviction.<BR/><BR/>In any event, this all appears to be moot since, as ti-guy writes, that asinine sentence was dropped. And, as grog writes, it's not clear that that sentence was even (U.S.) constitutional in the first place.CChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11406057201126015750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-1162009553088331012006-10-28T00:25:00.000-04:002006-10-28T00:25:00.000-04:001) I agree almost completely. The disagreement has...1) I agree almost completely. The disagreement has to do with your apparent allowance that the Government may decide to deport Watson if that is what it wants to do, as long as it doesn't take what the Americans did into account. Well, we're a nation of laws, and unless his offence is a deportable one (if only by means of the discretionary powers of the relevant officials) I don't see how they could legally deport him. And since he did nothing that would have been a criminal offence had it occurred in Canada, I don't see how any offical could have the discretionary powers to essentially revoke his permanent residence.<BR/><BR/>2) The whole uproar seems much ado about nothing. He kissed and touched one of his students. Sure, he's 35, and she's 15, and he shouldn't have done that. But to call this 'sexual abuse' seems likely to be misleading. And if a more serious crime had been committed he would be sitting an American jail.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-1161984864160176582006-10-27T17:34:00.000-04:002006-10-27T17:34:00.000-04:001) On the matter of deportation, Canada has agree...1) On the matter of deportation, Canada has agreements with the United States that would have resulted in his extradition to the United States when he was charged.<BR/><BR/>2) Like the United States, we reserve the right to deny convicted criminals who are not Canadian citizens the right to enter our borders.<BR/><BR/>The more serious question is whether a citizen of a country can "give up" their right to enter the country of citizenship without giving up their citizenship as well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com