Canadian Woman Allowed To Return Thanks To DNA Test

[Jacob]

I don't understand all the fuss.

There was some doubt about her identity, she provided the necessary documentation/blood work to prove she was who she claimed to be, and now they are letting her back in.

Where it the problem?

The problem is threefold, but interconnected:

1) That while traveling with the proper documentation and having done nothing wrong, she was prevented from traveling.

2) But okay, mistakes happen.  So if you miss a few days, them's the break.  It took three months, in which she was treated like a criminal, to resolve the mistake.  This is unacceptable.

3) That the government didn't do much to pursue the problem but had to be continually pressured by her family and lawyer to the point that she had to submit bloodwork.  You should not have to get bloodtests done in order to return to your own family in your country of citizenship.

[merithyn]

I disagree with that.  If an accused person tells me the sun rises in the east I always demand proof of that statement.  There are some situations where you can give someone the benefit of the doubt and assume they're telling you the truth.  I don't think this is one of them.

Well, that answers the benefit of the doubt question, doesn't it?

Max, we're staying in the States, honey. Sorry. 

[Jacob]

What is my "usual attitude about mistakes and punishment"?  I would think my attitude it that deliberate choices deserve strong consequences, honest mistakes deserve consequences, but often less strong.   

Your attitude is "I'm a prosecutor and everyone is guilty all the time and should be punished."  Usually you add some sort of smilie to it too.

I have no problem with the person who "fucked up" having to "pay the price", but my question is why does the price have to be firing?  There's a myriad of other consequences that can be suffered in the public service - a reprimand, a negative review (which impacts future promotions), a demotion, a suspension  - all which aren't firing.

When I say "career is over" that would be satisfied by "no prospects of promotion".  I did not specifically mean "fired" as you read it, it could simply mean "you fucked up this badly, so your prospects of further advancement are practically nil."

Remember if you lose your job you can always apply to any of a number of different games companies.  A public servant doesn't have that luxury of choice.

Reputation means a fair bit in the gaming industry.  If you fuck up as spectacularly as this your chances of getting work at a good company is not very high.

Besides, as GF says, it's irrelevant.  Lots of people have to retool their career paths after they get laid off or fired, often due to no fault of their own, and they can't find work in their field.  There's no special mercy for public servants, especially if their hardships are the results of their own fuck up.

But it's hypothetical.  I'm perfectly willing to allow that the responsibility doesn't lie with this particular bureaucrat, though perhaps it does.  At the very least, we should find out where the responsibility lies.

[Jacob]

I disagree with that.  If an accused person tells me the sun rises in the east I always demand proof of that statement.  There are some situations where you can give someone the benefit of the doubt and assume they're telling you the truth.  I don't think this is one of them.

Well, that answers the benefit of the doubt question, doesn't it?

Max, we're staying in the States, honey. Sorry. 

He's a prosecutor.  It's fine for him to do that in pursuing his job.  The problem is that the high commission official is not a prosecutor and should not have that attitude.

[merithyn]

He's a prosecutor.  It's fine for him to do that in pursuing his job.  The problem is that the high commission official is not a prosecutor and should not have that attitude.

I would assume that even a prosecutor would have his proof in place before bringing charges, rather than just going, "Well, it looks like she's guilty, I certainly don't believe her, someone else said she's guilty, so there you go. She's guilty!"

[Barrister]

Put yourself in the place of the DFAIT civil servant though.

You have someone in Kenya who is claiming to be a Canadian citizen.  You have reports that Kenyan officials think she is using someone else's passport.  Are they just supposed to believe this claim right off the bat?

Now yes you can say that more should have been done.  But it's a tough situation, like I said.

Do you not believe in innocent until proven guilty in Canada? 

Apples and oranges.

The presumtion of innocence applies to a full trial, where all the witnesses are called and subject to cross-examination.

I'm talking about pre-trial issues.  Someone who wants me to drop the charges "because they have an alibi", or want to delay a trial date "because I'm going to tratment".  These are items that are within that person's ability to prove (not mine), so I demand proof.

[merithyn]

Apples and oranges.

The presumtion of innocence applies to a full trial, where all the witnesses are called and subject to cross-examination.

I'm talking about pre-trial issues.  Someone who wants me to drop the charges "because they have an alibi", or want to delay a trial date "because I'm going to tratment".  These are items that are within that person's ability to prove (not mine), so I demand proof.

We're talking about this woman and her circumstances. Stop muddying the water with various other issues that mean nothing to this.

Would you assume that she was on a forged passport first and foremost without a single shred of evidence other than a foreign lackey saying, "I don't think she looks like the picture. The glasses are different and her lips look different, too."?

Is that enough for you to send her to a Kenyan prison?

[Admiral Yi]

Would you assume that she was on a forged passport first and foremost without a single shred of evidence other than a foreign lackey saying, "I don't think she looks like the picture. The glasses are different and her lips look different, too."?

A Canadian official looked at the photo and made the same judgement.

[Jacob]

A Canadian official looked at the photo and made the same judgement.

That's not enough, IMO, given she had all sorts of corroborating evidence (receipts from stores in Toronto, other ID, letter from her employee and so on).  The MO should've been to ascertain that the identity had in fact been stolen (I assume this was the suspicion) before treating the woman like a criminal.

[merithyn]

A Canadian official looked at the photo and made the same judgement.

That's the part I have a problem with.

Passports are good for 10 years in the States. I've changed a whole lot since my passport picture was taken in 2003. Hell, I've changed my hair color and cut four times, gotten new glasses, and gained 20 pounds since my license picture was taken two years ago.

How is that a valid reason to turn the woman over to the Kenyan authorities?

[Barrister]

A Canadian official looked at the photo and made the same judgement.

That's the part I have a problem with.

Passports are good for 10 years in the States. I've changed a whole lot since my passport picture was taken in 2003. Hell, I've changed my hair color and cut four times, gotten new glasses, and gained 20 pounds since my license picture was taken two years ago.

How is that a valid reason to turn the woman over to the Kenyan authorities?

She wasn't "turned over to Kenyan authorities".  She was in Kenya, and the Kenyan authorities didn't accept her passport (or, didn't accept her as being the person named in the passport).

[Admiral Yi]

That's not enough, IMO, given she had all sorts of corroborating evidence (receipts from stores in Toronto, other ID, letter from her employee and so on).  The MO should've been to ascertain that the identity had in fact been stolen (I assume this was the suspicion) before treating the woman like a criminal.

Store receipts don't corroborate citizenship, they corroborate physical presence in Canada.  The other ID and the citizenship certificate could corroborate identity and citizenship, or they could be evidence of a more elaborate identity fraud.

Did any of the stories include photos of the woman and the passport photo?  Those would certainly be illuminating.

[merithyn]

She wasn't "turned over to Kenyan authorities".  She was in Kenya, and the Kenyan authorities didn't accept her passport (or, didn't accept her as being the person named in the passport).

And she turned to her government for assistance, they passively agreed with the Kenyan authorities, and told them to book her. She then ended up in prison in Kenya. She wasn't assisted by the Canadian government at all until her family, friends and LAWYER intervened.

Is that not what happened? Did I misread that part?

[Neil]

A Canadian official looked at the photo and made the same judgement.

That's the part I have a problem with.

Passports are good for 10 years in the States. I've changed a whole lot since my passport picture was taken in 2003. Hell, I've changed my hair color and cut four times, gotten new glasses, and gained 20 pounds since my license picture was taken two years ago.

How is that a valid reason to turn the woman over to the Kenyan authorities?

In order to keep scum from getting into the country, sacrifices have to be made.

Besides, if somebody dyes their hair, they deserve to spend a few months in a Third World jail.

[merithyn]

In order to keep scum from getting into the country, sacrifices have to be made.

Besides, if somebody dyes their hair, they deserve to spend a few months in a Third World jail.

Wait 10 years, darling. When you're more gray than brown, you'll consider going under the bottle yourself