The Last Laugh

Owen Byrne owen at permafrost.net
Sat Apr 19 14:52:16 PDT 2003


On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 12:09:53PM -0400, bitbitch at magnesium.net wrote:
> 
> OB> http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/irpa/fs-overview.html
> 
> OB> It includes the standard neo-feudal language:
> 
> >>These include front-end security screening for all refugee claimants,
> >>clearer grounds for detention,
> 
> >> fewer appeals and opportunities for the
> >>courts to delay the removal of serious criminals, and suspension of
> >>refugee claims for people charged with serious crimes until the courts
> >>have made a decision.
> 
> The top part is ambiguous.  DId the Canadians not have _any_ screening
> before?  If so, I don't have a problem that they now have to screen
> individuals who come into the country. This is a good thing.   Even
> for me, its a good thing, and I'm a privacy nut.
> 
Its a government PR document - its ambiguous on purpose. We had
screening - but it wasn't rigourous enough for the US - too many
grounds for appeal, too much respect for individual rights. 

> AS for keeping the convicts out, you find this 'neo-feudal' how???
> Generally, criminals are bad, mmkay?  Political prisoners aside (which
> I don't think either the US or Canada is classifying in that category)
> folks who commit serious crimes (like murder or terrorism) shouldn't
> be allowed in.  End o' story.  Call me a neocon, but that's entirely
> logical to me.
> 

Where exactly do the criminals go? If I stole a loaf of bread to feed
my family one week ten years ago, that will be held against me? More
realistically - what if I switched over my subsistence farm from corn to
marijuana production? 

And yes, cultivation of marijuana would fall into the "serious" crime
definition. 

"those convicted outside Canada of an offence that, if committed in
Canada, would constitute an offence that may be punishable under any
Act of Parliament by a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or
more unless granted rehabilitation by the Governor in Council and at
least five years have elapsed since the expiration of any sentence
imposed for the offence [19(1)(c.a(1)]*; and..."

http://www.canadianimmigrationlaw.net/Library/criminal-convictions.htm

> 
> >>The introduction of a Permanent Resident Card, featuring a number of
> >>security elements, will make it easier for permanent residents to
> >>re-enter Canada after traveling abroad. 
> 
> Yes, cards do suck.  Doesn't Canada already have a national ID card
> system though?  ONe for their healthcare at least?   I won't go so far
> as to say this is a necessary evil, but is it really that much out of
> the ordinary?
> 

Nope. I have a drivers license and an Medical Card - but they're
a. provincial and b. never actually required for things other than
driving and health care. 

> 
> OB> Now perhaps Canadians somehow feel less secure and require these
> OB> policies.
> 
> Its probably a combination of both.  Canada did let in individuals who
> later committed terrorist acts against the US.  IT was bad.
> Ratcheting up their policy (some) wasn't such a scary thing.
> Ultimately it is a question of degrees.

Geeze - I thought you were educated - and yet you seem to have bought
the propaganda. Which particular individuals entered the US from
Canada to commit terrorist acts? 

I'm afraid - that they're in the same category as Iraqi WMDs -
complete US fabrication.

Owen




More information about the FoRK mailing list