Judge acts very ignorant

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Yes, absolutely!

Being in the country or working without the correct visa

Nothing, there is a reason it is how it is. You are talking of a police state to impose your personal morals on others. Not the first time you have made such ludicrous suggestions.

Prostitution should be legal. Makes the rest moot.

Not really if they can arrest you for just having sex. You're an idiot!


Except where it's legal and regulated...boom!!

Okay, you want to legalized selling sex. Are you saying you also want to legalized working in Canada without a visa?

And again, if you're not proposing that we legalized working in Canada without a visa, when what should be the burden of proof for working in Canada without a visa? Balance of probabilities as it is now the case? Presumption of innocence (i.e. guilty beyond a reasonable doubt)? Reason to believe? Something else?

I ask that last question because I'm well aware if police abuses when it comes to making accusations for immigration violations, and I believe the balance if probabilities is the main culprit. Too easy to make false accusations that way.
 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
Okay, you want to legalized selling sex. Are you saying you also want to legalized working in Canada without a visa?
No, can't you read?
And again, if you're not proposing that we legalized working in Canada without a visa, when what should be the burden of proof for working in Canada without a visa? Balance of probabilities as it is now the case? Presumption of innocence (i.e. guilty beyond a reasonable doubt)? Reason to believe? Something else?
You're being silly. Our current system may not be perfect but it beats what you're proposing. What you forget is that the constitution and Charter of Rights guarantee certain rights to CITIZENS...not visitors.
I ask that last question because I'm well aware if police abuses when it comes to making accusations for immigration violations, and I believe the balance if probabilities is the main culprit. Too easy to make false accusations that way.
Yeah I read your story and commented on it remember. Police make false accusations all the time with any burden of proof. That's why we have courts that are supposed to be impartial. Once again it isn't a perfect system but it's better than you're proposed alternative where you get to decide what's a crime and what isn't. I don't trust your impartiality or your judgement based on what I've seen you post. Thankfully your ideas are so ludicrous they will never even get close to being legislated in a FREE and OPEN society.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,522
9,608
113
Washington DC
One possibility would be to make fineable fornication a fineable offence only if one of the participants makes a sexual assault complaint.
Dafuq? You want to charge sexual assault as misdemeanor fornication?

However, we could make an exception if we're dealing with a foreign national who the police have reason to believe was working in Canada without a visa. But even then, she should still be protected by the presumption of innocence.
The presumption of innocence should, and does, apply to all crimes.

So Okay bones. So given how difficult rape is to prove, what do you propose as a way to discourage it in a reasonably effective manner? Lowering the burden of proof is obviously not a wise option. It would open the door to all kinds of police abuse?
Good thing I never came within a mile of suggesting that we lower the burden of proof. Nice red herring, though.

How do we discourage rape? I'm pretty sure threatening a rapist with a fine, in addition to the years in prison you get for rape, ain't gonna do it.

However, it does have the benefit of allowing the government to harass and persecute people whose sexual conduct Machjo disapproves of.

It do we just accept that that's just how it is and live with the fact that most assailants will get away with their crime?
Beats hell outta making sex a crime.

By the way, you need to figure out the difference between an immigration violation and a crime. They're completely different things, and conflating them is just one step in the path of arrant lunacy you're on.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Firstly, I never propose decriminalising sexual assault. However, when it can't proved beyond a reasonable doubt but can on a balance of probabilities, then proving fornication on the presumption of innocence becomes a better-than-nothing alternative as a deterrent.

Secondly, I know the difference between a criminal offence and an immigration violation. However, sex acts are covered in both. In Canada, both sexual assault and buying sex are criminal offences, and selling sex without proper authorisation to work in Canada is an immigration violation.

Since I'm well aware of how vulnerable the balance of probabilities can make foreign nationals in Canada to police corruption, I support raising immigration violations to the presumption of innocence just like a criminal offence.

However, I'm also aware of how difficult it can be to prove prostitution on the presumption of innocence which would make it next to impossible for the police to do anything against those who actually are guilty of selling sex in Canada. That's where making fornication a fineable offence comes in handy when we can prove on a balance of probabilities that the person sold sex and on the presumption of innocence that the person committed fornication. It would better protect the innocent from police corruption while still allowing the police to discourage the guilty.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,522
9,608
113
Washington DC
Firstly, I never propose decriminalising sexual assault. However, when it can't proved beyond a reasonable doubt but can on a balance of probabilities, then proving fornication on the presumption of innocence becomes a better-than-nothing alternative as a deterrent.
For the low, low cost of allowing the government to stick its nose into the private, intimate conduct of everybody in Canada, and hand out $1000 fines selectively to anybody it doesn't like for reasons that have f-all to do with public safety.

As I said, why not just criminalize breathing? Surely a just and honorable government would only prosecute when it was really, really important.

Secondly, I know the difference between a criminal offence and an immigration violation. However, sex acts are covered in both. In Canada, both sexual assault and buying sex are criminal offences, and selling sex without proper authorisation to work in Canada is an immigration violation.
OK, you just demonstrated you don't know the difference, or the significance of the difference.

Since I'm well aware of how vulnerable the balance of probabilities can make foreign nationals in Canada to police corruption, I support raising immigration violations to the presumption of innocence just like a criminal offence.
Except that foreign nationals have no right to be in Canada in the first place. Deporting them is not punishment, it's just telling them they can't be in Canada, which I emphasize they have no right to in the first place.

However, I'm also aware of how difficult it can be to prove prostitution on the presumption of innocence which would make it next to impossible for the police to do anything against those who actually are guilty of selling sex in Canada. That's where making fornication a fineable offence comes in handy when we can prove on a balance of probabilities that the person sold sex and on the presumption of innocence that the person committed fornication. It would better protect the innocent from police corruption while still allowing the police to discourage the guilty.
Yes, you've made it clear that you believe sex outside of marriage should be a crime.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Actually, a foreign national in Canada is protected by the Charter if Rights and Freedoms. But the Charter just doesn't cover immigration violations. It covers only criminal offences. But some aspects of the Charter do apply such as the right to an interpreter for example.

The Charter also protects against discrimination on the basis of race, so an immigration officer's actions can't be arbitrary.

As an example, if a foreign national is allowed in Canada for six months, the CBSA cannot kick him out until his six months is up without valid reason and the foreign national does enjoy the right to counsel and can even appeal a decision. Of course, so can the CBSA.

But the point is that foreign nationals do enjoy certain Constitutional and legal rights in Canada. Just that they don't enjoy the right to the presumption of innocence for an immigration violation. Butthey should.

Now as for crinal law, fine, I'll bow out if that one. Sexual assault is difficult to prove. We'll just have to live with that.
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,467
139
63
Location, Location
Yes, you've made it clear that you believe sex outside of marriage should be a crime.



Actually, sex within a marriage is a crime, if one party receives anything (not just money) in return.


So, if you let your wife stay home and eat meals, and in return you get sex, you are both guilty of a criminal offence.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Actually, sex within a marriage is a crime, if one party receives anything (not just money) in return.


So, if you let your wife stay home and eat meals, and in return you get sex, you are both guilty of a criminal offence.

The two would need to be directly linked. If I have sex with someone, and then she asks me for some money, but the sex was never conditional on the money nor the money on the sex, then they are two unrelated acts. The sex must be given with an expectation of money in return and the money for the sex two. A direct link must be proven. That is what makes prostitution si hard to prove. Even if I'm not married to the person, we have sex, we exchange money, but the two acts are unrelated, that is still legally not prostitution. Fornication, yes if we're not married to one another, but still not prostitution.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
I think it should be perfectly ok to work in this country without a visa. An AMEX or MasterCard should do just as good.

I could agree to that as long as it's moral work (e.g. no sex work) and taxes are paid like everyone else.

Sex workers are too prone to sexual assaults for us to allow that kind of work. Then there's the issue if STD's etc.

Sex assaults bog down the courts and the taxpayer. Yet we morally must protect people from it within reason.
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,467
139
63
Location, Location
I could agree to that as long as it's moral work (e.g. no sex work) and taxes are paid like everyone else.

Sex workers are too prone to sexual assaults for us to allow that kind of work. Then there's the issue if STD's etc.



Now you'll have to define what 'moral' work is.


Would banking be illegal if interest charges are involved?


What about dancing?


What about making playing cards?


What about selling tobacco or greasy fried foods?
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Now you'll have to define what 'moral' work is.


Would banking be illegal if interest charges are involved?


What about dancing?


What about making playing cards?


What about selling tobacco or greasy fried foods?

Most people would not even agree with the idea of allowing any foreign national to work in Canada without a visa. If we were to allow that, then banning those jobs that increase the probability of sexual assault would be reasonable I would think. No?
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,522
9,608
113
Washington DC
Actually, a foreign national in Canada is protected by the Charter if Rights and Freedoms.
Which does not give foreign nationals the right to be in Canada. So what's your point?

But the Charter just doesn't cover immigration violations. It covers only criminal offences. But some aspects of the Charter do apply such as the right to an interpreter for example.

The Charter also protects against discrimination on the basis of race, so an immigration officer's actions can't be arbitrary.

As an example, if a foreign national is allowed in Canada for six months, the CBSA cannot kick him out until his six months is up without valid reason and the foreign national does enjoy the right to counsel and can even appeal a decision. Of course, so can the CBSA.

But the point is that foreign nationals do enjoy certain Constitutional and legal rights in Canada. Just that they don't enjoy the right to the presumption of innocence for an immigration violation. Butthey should.

Now as for crinal law, fine, I'll bow out if that one. Sexual assault is difficult to prove. We'll just have to live with that.
I have neither the time nor the interest to explain it to you. I'm sorry. Maybe some other time.
 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
Firstly, I never propose decriminalising sexual assault. However, when it can't proved beyond a reasonable doubt but can on a balance of probabilities, then proving fornication on the presumption of innocence becomes a better-than-nothing alternative as a deterrent.
So a $1000 fine gets you off for sexual assault? To some that would be money well spent and as much of a deterrent as photo-radar is to speeding...none!
Secondly, I know the difference between a criminal offence and an immigration violation. However, sex acts are covered in both. In Canada, both sexual assault and buying sex are criminal offences, and selling sex without proper authorisation to work in Canada is an immigration violation.
Apparently you are very confused in your attempt to impose your morality on everyone else. Prostitution is a criminal offence, period. Not an immigration violation. The immigration violation is committing ANY criminal act while here on a visa or being here without a valid visa. BTW British and American citizens do not require a visa unless working or attending school but cannot remain longer than 6 months as a visitor.
Since I'm well aware of how vulnerable the balance of probabilities can make foreign nationals in Canada to police corruption, I support raising immigration violations to the presumption of innocence just like a criminal offence.
If you aren't a Canadian citizen you can be deported for a speeding violation. You aren't a citizen therefore have NO right to be here without permission.
However, I'm also aware of how difficult it can be to prove prostitution on the presumption of innocence which would make it next to impossible for the police to do anything against those who actually are guilty of selling sex in Canada. That's where making fornication a fineable offence comes in handy when we can prove on a balance of probabilities that the person sold sex and on the presumption of innocence that the person committed fornication. It would better protect the innocent from police corruption while still allowing the police to discourage the guilty.
Funny how many prostitutes are in jail and how many 'Johns' are in court. The evidence does not match your allegation. You just want to impose your version of morality upon everyone...Machjo's own police state!

Most people would not even agree with the idea of allowing any foreign national to work in Canada without a visa. If we were to allow that, then banning those jobs that increase the probability of sexual assault would be reasonable I would think. No?

Exactly why you're being a fool. Do you even realize how silly you look at this point?
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
A few errors in your post, so I'll clarify just one. Selling sex in Canada is legal as long as you have the right to work in Canada.

Buying it is illegal.

Abd while foreign nationals don't have a right to be in Canada, they have a right to due process.

For example, an officer gives someone a speeding tickets and he contents it saying he wasn't speeding. Though the CBSA and the police could illegally try to kick him out of the country before he knows what hit him, if he gets a lawyer in time, he still enjoys the right to due process and there is nothing the police or CBSAcould do about it. Not legalky anyway.

Again, foreign nationals still enjoy certain fundamental rights in Canada. It's just that the CBSA often bypasses those laws illegally. Hard to prove though.

But if the goal is to reduce the occurrence if sexual assault, then allowing foreign nationals to work in moral industries without a visa could keep them out of the sex trade.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,522
9,608
113
Washington DC
Abd while foreign nationals don't have a right to be in Canada, they have a right to due process.
Of course they do. Everyone has a right to due process in Canada. But if someone is being deported, that is not a punishment, and they have not committed a crime. They have simply done what they are not permitted to do as part of their permission to be in Canada, and therefore that permission is revoked.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Of course they do. Everyone has a right to due process in Canada. But if someone is being deported, that is not a punishment, and they have not committed a crime. They have simply done what they are not permitted to do as part of their permission to be in Canada, and therefore that permission is revoked.
If proved guilty on a balance of probabilities.
 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
A few errors in your post, so I'll clarify just one. Selling sex in Canada is legal as long as you have the right to work in Canada.
Soliciting and Communication for the purpose are still criminal and can be applied to both parties depending on the situation.
Buying it is illegal.
Neither selling or buying should be illegal. We have an inherent right to control of our own bodies.
Abd while foreign nationals don't have a right to be in Canada, they have a right to due process.
Yes but not as you see it. They have some rights under the immigration act but they are not protected by the constitution.
For example, an officer gives someone a speeding tickets and he contents it saying he wasn't speeding. Though the CBSA and the police could illegally try to kick him out of the country before he knows what hit him, if he gets a lawyer in time, he still enjoys the right to due process and there is nothing the police or CBSAcould do about it. Not legalky anyway.
Again their right to due process is under the immigration act not the Charter
Again, foreign nationals still enjoy certain fundamental rights in Canada. It's just that the CBSA often bypasses those laws illegally. Hard to prove though.
See above answer.
But if the goal is to reduce the occurrence if sexual assault, then allowing foreign nationals to work in moral industries without a visa could keep them out of the sex trade.
If you want to reduce the occurrence of sexual assault then the courts need to give harsher penalties and we need to educate more about what constitutes sexual assault and promote an atmosphere of respect for others. Allowing illegal immigrants to work without authorization and take away jobs from citizens does none of these and in fact fosters anger and contempt towards those illegals which would promote more assaults in general, not just sexual assaults.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,522
9,608
113
Washington DC
If proved guilty on a balance of probabilities.
Yes, what we call "the preponderance of the evidence," i.e., 50% and a smidge.

Try to get this through your head: the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt," which you seem to have confused with the presumption of innocence, applies in criminal cases. That means if you are being tried for a crime, under threat of fine or imprisonment. The fact that some conduct is a both a crime and grounds for deportation is irrelevant. If the government is trying to deport you, it needs only demonstrate your conduct by balance of probabilities. If it is trying to imprison you for the same conduct, it needs to demonstrate that beyond a reasonable doubt.

It's the same in civil cases. O.J. Simpson was acquitted of killing Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman in the criminal case, but found to be responsible for their deaths in the civil case, because the standards of evidence are different.
 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
If proved guilty on a balance of probabilities.

Legally we can deport you just because we don't want you here. There is no absolute right to enter Canada or to remain here unless you are a Canadian citizen. The permission to enter can be revoked at any time for no specific reason and it is the onus of the visitor to convince a judge they should be allowed to stay. Admittedly most judges will not deport unless there is a reason but legally you have to go if permission is revoked.