I can only thank you for repeating what I said, that you subsequently couldn't understand. Perhaps you've sobered up. Whatever happened, it's good to see that you've agreed with me.
B.C. pedophile, homeward bound after Thai prison term, arrested at Vancouver airport
- Thread starter B00Mer
- Start date
I can only thank you for repeating what I said, that you subsequently couldn't understand. Perhaps you've sobered up. Whatever happened, it's good to see that you've agreed with me.
Which you claimed he should not be arrested for breaking Canadian laws, because he did it in Thailand... :roll:
The premise behind the Canadian extraterritorial child sex offender laws.
Whatever as long as it's swift with no red tape involved, at minimal expense, once guilt is determined beyond any doubt.
HOLD UP!!! Are you seriously defending the rights of a pedophile???
Unfortunately in a democracy we must. He has a right to a fair trial before his hanging. Otherwise you might be next.
Oh now come on.. you're taking it way to personal.. I never called you a child didler.. however maybe you have the same view of Thailand that it's a haven for pedophiles.
If you escape the cities and go to the country, Thailand has some of the most beautiful beaches in the world.. It's ashamed that the country has developed a bad image.
I was going to go there on vacation..
I have heard the forest temples are quite impressive and there are many to be seen. It is a shame for the reputation as a sex destination.
That would take effort and prove the members point invalid.. so good luck with that..
I did read it. You missed the part about it not applying if he has been convicted and sentenced in the foreign jurisdiction. That said I believe it is an unjust & unconstitutional law. How bout we start charging people for shoplifting in Bolivia, or passing bad checks in France or murder in South Africa. It is ludicrous to consider such charges as the offense is outside Canada's jurisdiction. Why is it those charges are considered unconstitutional but pedophilia isn't?
Did you miss the part where I mentioned his producing Child Porn - If downloaded in Canada - He will be charged. Also the Thai crown may not have charged him with all offenses - then he will be charged.
This fellow is going to jail.
In Canada, it is illegal for anyone to engage in any prohibited sexual activity with children below the age of consent. These prohibitions encompass all sexual activity ranging from sexual touching to sexual intercourse. It also prohibits:
possessing, making, distributing, making available, accessing, transmitting, selling, importing and exporting child pornography;
obtaining for consideration the sexual services of a young person or communicating with anyone for the purpose of obtaining those services for consideration (i.e., the prostitution of a young person);
incest;
engaging in bestiality in the presence of or by a child; and
exposure of genitalia for a sexual purpose to a child.
The legal age of consent is 18 years for sexual activity involving prostitution or pornography or where it involves a relationship of trust, authority or dependency, or one that is otherwise exploitative of the young person. The legal age of consent for all other sexual activity is 16 years.
Convictions in Canada carry severe penalties of up to 14 years' imprisonment as well as mandatory minimum prison sentences.
Canadian citizens and permanent residents of Canada who engage in any of these prohibited sexual activities with a child in a foreign country can also be charged and prosecuted in Canada for these child sex tourism offences where they have not been convicted of these offences in the foreign country.
So underlining it make it constitutional? I have great issue with Canada making laws assuming jurisdiction where we do not have it. Perhaps if the Afghani govt decided to start charging Canadians for things they did here against Afghani law? You see the problem yet? It is a horrible nasty slippery slope we start descending with extraterretorial laws. I don't like them, I don't think they are constitutional, and I don't think we want a precedent whereby other govts can charge people for acts in Canada.
I would say google the charges laid, convictions for Canadians bribing persons - Govt officials from other countries on their soil, not Canadian soil, overseas for Canadian contracts- So it is not unconstituitional.
Underlining it was to make them easy to note - not insulting - also I underlined your point ref convictions as well as mine made in an earlier post and clarified it as well.
Many countries have this law along with laws on bribing govt officials overseas -
http://www.law.ubc.ca/files/pdf/faculty/perrin/pdf/Westlaw_Document_17_17_16.pdf
Nothing like comparing apples to oranges. No where do those laws say anything about Canada charging a non Canadian with anything. So try again with your obfuscation, it didn't work this time.
Pg 9 - though the previous pages provides other judicial reasoning.
http://beyondborders.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/child-sex-tourism-paper-melissa-ferens.pdf
The Current Canadian Approach to Criminal Law Jurisdiction - The “Real and Substantial
Connection” Test
La Forest J., writing for the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Libman affirmed the
territorial principle as the “primary basis” of criminal jurisdiction, and established the “real and
substantial connection” test for determining whether a criminal offence should be subject to the
jurisdiction of a Canadian court. After extensively reviewing Canadian and English cases, La
Forest recognized that the law has evolved to permit states to assert jurisdiction over acts
committed in another state when those acts are connected to the furtherance of a criminal offence
in Canada:
As I see it, all that is necessary to make an offence subject to the jurisdiction of
our courts is that a significant portion of the activities constituting that offence
took place in Canada. As it is put by modern academics, it is sufficient that there
be a “real and substantial link” between an offence and this country, a test well
known in public and private international law.
30
Subsequent to Libman, the “real and substantial connection” test has been reaffirmed and applied
in numerous cases, in both the civil and criminal context.
31
Factors to take into acc
As I read and interpret this according to the highlighted portions to be charged under this law either a significant part of the offence needs to take place in Canada or the actions outside Canada are for the purpose of committing an offense in Canada. I don't think either of these standards apply as per the story in the OP. There may be information we don't have yet that creates the link required but according to this ruling as long as what you do is 100% outside of Canada and does not further an offence within Canada you can do as you please....which is how it should be.
The government has used a 'hot button' issue like this to promote extraterretorial prosecutions and erode our rights with the blessing of those that cannot control their emotions. Basically you have been played. Think of it this way....if the govt promoted this kind of law surrounding say me visiting a cannabis cafe while in Amsterdam it would never have got off the ground but because they bring in the emotionally charged topic of pedophilia people support it without realizing it is a violation of our rights.
What a law like this leads to is the situation surrounding the young man from Britain who is facing extradition to the US for prosecution under the new anti-piracy law. This guy has never been to the US, does not host his website in the US, and is a British citizen living in London where what he did is not against any law. This is just wrong no matter how you slice it.
Last edited:
While I get what you're saying, there is a line we have to draw, as a global community. We have so much freedom of movement now, so much wealth, on a global scale, that at some point we have to stop and agree to prosecute as human beings.
I think most humans can agree that line lies past shoplifting, and before sexual abuse
That is a hollow argument. Applying Canadian laws to Canadian citizens is not the same as Afghanistan applying their laws to Canadian citizens.
You are ignoring the intent of the law as it was originally brought in. The intent was to prevent Canadians from abusing the underpriviliged status of certain countries, the lax human rights protection for their citizenry, and the lack of money to prosecute and extradite criminals.
You're right that applying the same law to piracy would not serve the same intent of the law. But that doesn't mean that one needs to be scrapped in order to protect the other.
Children were raped. That IS emotional. It always should be emotional. It ALWAYS should be held to a different legal standard than internet piracy and petty theft, as most crimes are held to different standards within our legal system. That's why there is a specific set of laws surrounding its unique problem in our global society. A fairly well publicized set of laws nonetheless.
But that's a separate matter. He should arrested and charged for the crimes he'd committed in Canada, not those committed in Thailand. You might be right, maybe he did download stuff in Canada, and if so the Thai authorities did the right thing not to prosecute him for that part but only the crimes committed in their country. Now it's time to prosecute him for the crimes he'd committed in Canada.
Ok then, but choose the right forum to do it. If we are going to prosecute people for certain crimes internationally then the international court is the place to do it under an international law. As it stands today we have countries applying their laws outside of their jurisdiction and it doesn't matter what the crime is, how emotionally charged, another sovereign state is another state and we have no business there.
I know this is an extreme example and at the bottom of that slippery slope we are at the top of right now but we are moving down it. All of the detainees at Gitmo were charged for violating a US law while in Afghanstan. The US is prosecuting a British citizen for things he did in Britain in violation of US law.
I am not ignoring the intent. I already said it was probably written with good intentions but we all know which road good intentions pave. The intent is irrellevant anyway. This law is hypocritical at best and I call it unconstitutional. When we as Canadians travel to another country our govt warns us that we are subject to the laws of the country we go to and that the charter and due process under Canadian law does not apply. Why do they tell us this? Could it be that once we leave our country and enter another our govt has no juridiction? That is the question here to be answered, do we have legal jurisdiction within another sovereign state? The answer is NO!
Ahh, but it is being applied to piracy by the US already and if bill C-35 passes in Canada we will apply it outside our borders too and not just upon Canadians. Extraterritorial prosecution is just plain wrong no matter how you feel about the crime.
What I find funny is people believing there should be different standards in our law depending upon the accusation. If it is BS to prosecute outside our jurisdiction for 1 thing it is BS for all things. That is how the law is kept equal & fair.
I understand your outrage on the topic but the underlined portion of your post is actually the problem. Our constitution and charter allow for varying standards within the law regarding sentencing & bail. Where we do not have different standards is in whether to prosecute or if we find guilty. Calling for different standards based upon your outrage is why we have a constitution, to guarantee your emotion doesn't interfere with someone's right to a fair trial.
OK, how about the US govt charging a British citizen who has never been to the US with an american criminal offence for acts within Britain and then asking for his extradition. So does that clear it up for ya? These things are already happening. The US prosecution of that poor British kid is a litmus test for them, if it works any Canadian who downloads a song or a movie can, and will, be charged under US law even if they have never entered the US. Bill C-35 will allow Canada to prosecute non-Canadians for piracy if the artist is a Canadian.
Calling for different standards for crimes perpetrated upon the bodies of citizens, is not simply an emotional reaction, it's based on the fact that the main intent of the law is to keep citizens safe. Not corporations, not banks... citizens. To demand that there be a higher priority placed on dealing with crime that violates the physical safety and the human rights of others, is not hypocritical, it's not emotional, it's not based on this case being pedophilia. Sexual assault, murder, enslavement... they all should be crimes you can't simply hop a border to escape, as hopping a border is too simple in this day and age.