This is excruciatingly funny, but I'm confused by this part:
Judge: [Temporary Resident Permits] are given at the discretion of the Minister, who had already indicated that Mr Galloway wouldn't receive one.
CIC Lawyer: Yes, but he could have shown up at the border--
Judge: --and run the risk of indefinite detention. That's not much of an option, is it?
CIC Lawyer: I admit that these are not very palatable options, but--
"Run the risk of indefinite detention?" How exactly would that work? If you're declared inadmissible, then they don't let you in. So how could they refuse you entrance to Canada, and simultaneously take you into custody?
Does anyone else see a jurisdictional problem here?
4 comments:
It's just too painful to watch justice being ass-raped by these people.
If you are inadmissible to Canada or the US because of suspicion of terrorism, you can be detained indefinitely. They don't have to let you in, but they can put you in jail.
But he was already allowed into the States. The numero uno country in the world fighting TERRORISM!!!!! So why exactly, did the U.S.A. let Mr. Galloway in given that he was such a heinous terrorist enabler?
Curious minds wish to know.
Actually, I don’t want an answer. I’m just hoping some CPC supporter had a brain aneurism between this paragraph and the first.
It is a typical statute of most countries that any attempt to enter illegally is cause for arrest and detention.
Witness Vancouver International Airport where US Customs and INS "pre-screen" those people boarding planes to the US. If you are refused entry you have to pay a fine for even trying to get in. The armed AMERICAN will escort you across the CANADIAN airport to a cash machine to withdraw the money to pay the fine... before they send you packing. In short, it's an obscenity.
Only once have I ever seen anyone call for the police and have the AMERICAN uniformed officials escorted back to their "embassy zone".
Post a Comment