American Sentenced to Exile in Canada
October 27, 2006There has been much talk these days about Malcolm Watson, the 35 year old American teacher recently convicted in the United States of having sexual contact with a 15 year old female student.
What is particularly strange about this case is the sentence that was imposed. The judge offered the culprit a choice - one year imprisonment or banishment to Canada for three years. Mr. Watson obviously chose the latter. At first blush the punishment appears rather random but if you bother to connect the dots there is some reason behind it. You see, Mr. Watson is a Canadian Landed Immigrant and has been a Permanent Resident of Canada for the last four years. He has been living on the Canadian side of the border with his Canadian wife and kids, while teaching at a US private school near the border.
Now, comes this hue and cry from Canadian federal and provincial politicians of all stripes. We must, they insist, bar Mr. Watson's entry to Canada. Our Border Services personnel, being no dummies, got the message and they arrested Mr. Watson when he attempted to enter Canada a few days ago.
There's only one major hitch here and that is Mr. Watson has the right to be in Canada. As a Permanent Resident, he needs nobody's permission to be in Canada and whether you, I, or Prime Minister Harper, prefer otherwise is irrelevant in these circumstances.
The only way that Mr. Watson could have his Permanent Resident status removed would be if he had been convicted of an offence outside Canada, which would have been an offence had it been committed in Canada that is punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years or more. Sexual contact with a student under the age of 18 is indeed a criminal offence in Canada but the maximum term of imprisonment is only 5 years - end of story.
If the politicians and those for whom they thump their chests wish to change the laws of Canada then they ought to follow the proper procedure to do so. That is why we have Parliament.
In the meantime, we must remember that if we are a nation of laws, then the laws apply equally to those whom we admire and to those whose actions offend us.
13 Comments:
1) He kissed and touched a 15 yr old.
2) The age of consent is 14 here. So there wouldn't even have been a crime had what happened occurred here, much less one punishable by 10 years.
Yes, at the present time the age for consensual sex is 14 years old in Canada. However, when one party has a position of authority over the other then the age of consent is 18 years old. Mr. Watson was a teacher and the girl he had contact with was his student and therefore he is considered to have been in a position of authority vis-a-vis her. So, the fact that the maximum penalty for such an offence is 5 years in Canada is relevant.
It is amazing that a country would allow a 14year old the right to sexual intercourse!
That is way too young, she is but a child!
Please this should be reviewed upwards to 18years of age and for position of authority over the receipient of such attention, 20years fro consent.
Many permanent residents are convicted for many offences here, in Canada. I don't see the Prime Minister wanting to remove them. What I know, is that they cannot obtain citizenship until a pardon is granted. So why the big fuss about the american? If we remove the amrican, let's remove all those who are not citizens and are convicted of serious offences.
Mr. Cohen:
I want to confirm with you if I understood this article and your comments right.
1.
In the article, the ultimate point it wants to make is that the Canadian Border Patrol really has no right to keep him out,
2. Mr. David Cohen's comment on October 30 says "the fact that the maximum penalty for such an offence is 5 years in Canada is relevant." Was it a typo? Should the word "relevant" have been "irrelevant"?
I am simply very confused by both the article and the comment. My ultimate question is:"Should he be kept out of Canada or not??"
Mr. Cohen, could you give a definite answer?
Thank you.
Shawnee
This is really absurde and disgusting to even mention that only 5 years should one be jailed for having sex with a minor.Canada is therefore a refuge of sexual offender.This law must be ammended immediatly to be changed for a minimum of 25 years or so..
Then we are going to talk about removing such a criminal from the country.
The problem is Canada needs more immigrants, removing the felons means a decline in the population thus Canada suffer economically.
In a free and democratic society anyone who wishes to engage in sexual relationships with anyone who wishes to engage in same sexual relationships is free to do so, whatever his or her age.
In response to associating consensual sex with rules of decomcracy is completly irrelevant.
Dear David,
In India age is never taken into consideration when a crime like this takes place.In fact, such an act takes place every day in the super crowded commuter buses taking our children to school.The point here is "Why make an issue just for the heck of it?"A kiss in this case can be easily proved to be paternal or with affection;like we commonly do in our life to show appreciation for each other.So whats the big deal,anyway?See around us and you will find many more serious illegal acts being done by people who are more dangerous to society than a mere school teacher.
With best wishes,
Paul
Too bad about the comment just above. There's no call for that.
I am just ecstatic to find out that I can "land in Canada" and work in America (as I am a board certified professional and it will take me two years to become such in Canada) and enjoy the benefits of living in Canada. We are new at this, and just took our medicals and are awaiting approval.
To Alpha Bah:
In your mind, it is irrelevant.
Based on the options offered by the Judge in America,it leaves me to think real hard as to the reason(s)for such an option. Thus the question, "Is there more to this case/matter than what meets the eye?"
Irrespesctive of the status of an individual I believe that the laws of a land must be upheld by the 'enforcers' of such laws. Therefore, if the courts found the individual guilty, be he a school teacher, construction worker,etc., then they should hand down a 'strict' sentence, NO OPTIONS!
Aaarph! It then leads me to ask, "Were this Canadian a Colombian, a Dominican or a Jamaican, would he have been given that same or a similar option?" I say, I was not born to preach.
Rich P.I.
Post a Comment