A Scotsman who came to Canada 42 years ago at the age of 7 has been ordered deported, even though he has no criminal record and has never been charged with anything.
Read that last line again, and think about it for a minute or so… 42 years in Canada, no official blot on his record, and he is being sent back to a country of which he likely has only the haziest recollection other than for visits.
Fitting back in would be difficult to say the least. It certainly would be for me after a similar length of time away from England, and I arrived at the age of 20.
The primary issue here is the presumption of guilt, followed by the infliction of serious punishment, without benefit of any kind of court procedure; I don’t count ‘due process’ if it is carried out by bureaucrats and politicians.
Even if he were to be convicted first and then deported, his treatment would still be substantially different from that accorded to other convicted immigrants.
On November 4th, 2010, Tom Godfrey of the Toronto Sun wrote of television preacher Kene Don Ifepe, the ‘Reverand Don’ who “…was refused citizenship by a judge in 2007 over his scamming a Toronto Scotia Bank out of more than $300,000…. ‘He is very repentant about his unfortunate lapse of judgement’ (his lawyer) Yehuda Levinson said… This person actually had the nerve to appeal denial of citizenship after being refused for scamming a Toronto bank out of $300,000 after making his citizenship application. Why on earth is he still even here, let alone being able to appeal? And if he “keeps his nose clean” for a mere three years, he can apply again with every prospect of succeeding?” (See link “Convicted Nigerian scam artist appeals refusal of citizenship” below).
And Mark Stables has never even been charged with anything, and yet untested evidence is sufficient to ensure his removal? This man should be given his day in court, and the opportunity should be there for precedent to be set, and legal boundaries to be tested. And, for a Charter challenge to be launched against this eminently disturbing action.
And it gets worse. On May 31st, 2011, I posted an item headed “Canadian gov’t to strip political dissenters of citizenship?” in which I discussed the desire in some quarters to empower the Prime Minister and his Cabinet to strip naturalised Canadians of their citizenship, without any recourse to the courts being allowed. In it, I said in part: “I’m wondering just how long it will be before the scope of such legislation, if passed, will slowly be ‘expanded’ to include anyone the government doesn’t like, or whom the forces of ‘political correctness’ i.e. special interest groups, human rights zealots, B’nai Brith and the Anti-Defamation League, wish to pursue… Will legislation of this nature be used to silence people like myself? And what will happen if I show up at the U.S. side of the border claiming refugee status and the benefits of the First Amendment, which confers rights of free speech which have been seriously compromised and even neutralized in both Britain and Canada?” (Further link below).
My concern is that this move by the government is intended to set a precedent for the arbitrary removal from Canada, without any trial or appeal allowed, of anyone the government or any of its favoured Jewish and other ‘special interest’ groups don’t like.
Not only is long-term residence to be irrelevent, but even legally-acquired citizenship is to have no meaning either. What will the government do with ‘undesirables’ who were born here? Lock them up indefinitely? The United States is already well on the way to arbitrarily locking up its citizens without charges or trial, and FEMA has built prison camps for that purpose.
Canada is well on the way to becoming a Third-World dictatorship, and we ignore these warnings at our peril.
Canada shows distinct lack of sympathy for Hell’s Angels treasurer
‘Full Comment Forum’
December 9th, 2011
A former “full patch” member of the Hell’s Angels has been ordered deported even though he has no criminal record, was never charged with anything and now spends his time teaching martial arts to police and firefighters. Mark Stables came to Canada from Scotland age 7 but never obtained citizenship. Ottawa says it’s enough that he was a member of a criminal organization. Is it fair to kick him out for membership alone, or should his personal record be taken into consideration?
Kelly McParland in Toronto, in his leathers: I could argue either side of this. Mostly I think he should be kicked out. He was the treasurer and senior member of a criminal organization. The money he collected on its behalf came from drugs, prostitution and other crimes. The fact that he was never charged is irrelevant: if you aid and abet a criminal operation, you’re as culpable as the ones committing the crimes. If he’d been treasurer of the Canadian Nazi party would we argue, “yeah, but he was never charged?”
Yet it’s not illegal just to be a member of a biker gang, and if he can be deported just for being a member, why can’t other members all be jailed on the same grounds? This is supposed to be a country of laws, whether we like the laws or not. This reminds me of the drinking laws now being applied in Ontario, Alberta and B.C., in which you’re treated as guilty even when the law admits you’re not guilty.
I say kick him out, but I admit the guy’s got a case.
Matt Gurney of Toronto, now in witness protection: I’m not clear on whether it’s illegal to be a member of a criminal gang. Section 467.11 (1) of the Criminal Code deals with assistance to criminal organizations, and reads: “Every person who, for the purpose of enhancing the ability of a criminal organization to facilitate or commit an indictable offence under this or any other Act of Parliament, knowingly, by act or omission, participates in or contributes to any activity of the criminal organization is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.”
Just a reading of the above section of the Criminal Code, specifically the reference to “participates in … any activity” suggests that membership is probably by itself a crime, so long as one knows what they’re participating in. A full-patch member of the Hell’s Angels can’t pretend to be shocked when he’s told that the group can be a little rough around the edges, and it was classified as a criminal organization as far back as 2005, I believe.
But then again, all of the above is irrelevant as regards Stables himself. His involvement went beyond mere membership (arguably illegal on its own merits) — he collected membership dues and contributed them to a Hell’s Angels bank account. Certainly the case can be made that that constitutes “participates in and contributes to” the activities of the Hell’s Angels. If Stables has any point at all, it’s that he hasn’t been found guilty of this crime yet. And that might be a fair point. So if we have to, let’s try him, then give him the boot. If the immigration legislation permits us to simply give him the boot, though, let’s go with that.
Lorne Gunter in Edmonton: I can’t believe how whiny this guy is. Good Lord, the man’s the former head of Hells Angels Ontario and served as treasurer for 10 of its chapters and still he complains, “It feels like I am being persecuted and attacked for no good reason. I have been fighting this and it feels like someone is picking on me to send a message.” Yeah, the message is, “Don’t be surprised if we punt you from Canada if you insist on being the bookkeeper for drug runners, pimps and murderers. D’uh.”
But that said, he makes one valid point: He’s never been charged with or convicted of anything. I don’t buy his victim act. He had to have known where the money he was handling was coming from. He simply couldn’t have imagined he had joined the two-wheeled equivalent of the Rotary Club. Still, even if he is known to have been a member of a criminal organization (and acknowledges as much himself) and even if just belonging is illegal, it is a dangerous precedent to punish people who have not been tried in court. You are innocent until proven guilty, not merely innocent until presumed guilty.
The tipping point for me, though, is his lack of Canadian citizenship. He has lived here 42 years and didn’t think enough of the place to apply for citizenship. And citizenship has its privileges, one of which is the right to due process. Were Mark Stables a full-blown Canadian citizen, I’d defend his right to stay here unless and until he is convicted of a crime. But he’s not a citizen, so unfortunately (for him), he doesn’t get the full protection of our laws and Constitution. He’s here only so long as he behaves himself and he hasn’t, so he gets to go.
Kelly McParland: I have consulted Adrian Humphreys, the National Post’s expert on all things biker-related, re this question of biker-gang membership and the legality thereof. Here’s his answer:
It comes down to citizenship having its privileges. Citizens with full right to be here face a higher threshold of accountability for their behaviour than non-citizens who have sought permission to be in Canada. So while for a Canadian biker gang member in Canada, it has to be proven in court “beyond a reasonable doubt” that he committed a crime, for a non-Canadian biker in Canada it need only be proven there are “reasonable grounds to believe” that he is engaged in crime to act. The outcome of such a ruling, after all, is a free plane ride back home instead of significant jail time.
It is not illegal to be a member of a biker gang, but someone can be charged with gangsterism if they are shown to have materially contributed to the gang’s criminal activity. Criminal activity must be proven in court. Usually, an organized crime charge is laid as an add-on to a related criminal charge when the crime is alleged to be related to the crime group.
So that settles it for me: hasta la vista baby. Don’t let the door slam on your way out. My only question is what he’s got against Scotland.
See original here.
See “Convicted Nigerian scam artist appeals refusal of citizenship” here.
See “Canadian gov’t to strip political dissenters of citizenship?” here.