This wouldn't have happened if she was white.
www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/679861 (http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/679861)
ALLAN WOODS
IN OTTAWA
LESLEY CIARULA TAYLOR
IN TORONTO
Nothing in Canadian law stops the government from "picking and choosing" which Canadians it will help and who it will abandon, a former senior diplomat warns.
In the case of Suaad Hagi Mohamud, a Toronto woman who was detained in Kenya for 12 weeks, "overzealous" civil servants chose to abandon her, said former consular services chief Gar Pardy.
What's worse, he said, is that Ottawa could just say, "`Sorry it happened' and that's the end of it" unless somebody ensures there is a "protection of Canadians act."
Such an act would turn "Crown prerogative" – meaning Canadians are at the mercy of the government for anything not spelled out in law – into something that gives overseas Canadians some protection.
Mohamud's ordeal was closer to being over yesterday after Ottawa agreed to issue travel documents so she could return home. But other Canadians are still vulnerable.
"This is an issue that is not as uncommon as people would think," said Toronto lawyer Lorne Waldman. "If it weren't for the fact she had supporters here she would probably have gone to jail for six months or a year for using a false document. Clearly that's problematic.
"There are lots of other cases where people don't get all the publicity because people aren't interested or they don't have advocates in Canada and they get stranded."
Many people are just assumed to be guilty, he added.
The Conservative government has clearly tried to stay away from Mohamud's case.
Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon and Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan avoided comment even when a legion of supporters, family members and even Mohamud's Toronto employer came forward to verify her identity.
Pointing to a case in contrast, Pardy discussed the plight of Brenda Martin, who was jailed in Mexico, rescued by a minister's intervention and flown home in a government plane.
"I'd like that same level of service for everyone. It shows how this is a matter of discretion and discrimination" the way different Canadians are treated.
In another case, Justice Russell Zinn ordered the government to bring Abousfian Abdelrazik back from his Kafkaesque nightmare in Khartoum, where he received permission to travel but was denied a passport until he somehow disproved terrorism allegations.
"The only basis for the denial of the passport was that the minister had reached this opinion; there has been nothing offered and no attempt made to justify that opinion," Zinn said.
Pardy agrees that the litany of abandoned Canadians, from Maher Arar, tortured in a Syrian jail, to Abdelrazik and Mohamud should force someone in government to weigh the consequences.
"We get brown stuff on our faces every time this happens. There must be a better way of doing this.
"This is going on week after week. There should be some learning, some political will somewhere in the system to fix it."
Mohamud's ordeal started in May when airline KLM and Kenyan authorities flagged her as suspicious, saying her lips and eyeglasses didn't look like her Canadian passport photo.
Then the staff at the Canadian High Commission in Kenya not only failed to help her as a citizen but also sent her passport to Kenyan immigration authorities for criminal prosecution.
That step astonishes Pardy. "You would think they would bloody well have made sure their judgment was based on something more than thick lips," he said. "The ministers should be insisting on a proper investigation.
"Ministers have been getting a free ride. They are more and more sliding away from direct responsibilities when things go wrong. If ministers aren't responsible, then nobody is responsible."
When Mohamud's lawyer pleaded her case to federal court, the Tories refused to comment because the case of mistaken identity was now a legal matter.
One of the few remarks came from Cannon, who said she would have to try harder to prove that she was the person pictured in the passport.
All the crucial decisions in Mohamud's frustrating tale of a trip gone wrong were actually made in an office building overlooking the Ottawa River, where bureaucrats in the Consular Services and Emergency Management Branch of Foreign Affairs have the power to help or hinder Canadians in need of their government's help.
"The buck stops with them, and the advice they give to the minister," said MP Dan McTeague, a former parliamentary secretary responsible for Canadians abroad under former prime minister Paul Martin.
"When these matters become political, it's entirely the discretion of the minister responsible in the case and they're often told not to speak."
The overriding lesson, said Pardy, is "we need to make sure nobody forgets this."
Quote from: Josephus on August 12, 2009, 10:52:40 AM
This wouldn't have happened if she was white.
I bet bad things sometimes happen to white people to.
I never said they don't.
Bad things happen to me all the time.
Quote from: Josephus on August 12, 2009, 11:02:22 AM
I never said they don't.
Bad things happen to me all the time.
Sounds like she just got screwed to me via bureaucratic BS. That is always a danger you have to consider when you go abroad...especially to places like Kenya where things have been a bit sketchy of late.
Does she look white in the passport photo?
Heh, anyone thinking this is a "racial issue" should try dealing with the Canadian immigration authorities in Ukraine. :lol:
Fact is, some places in the world are more productive of various sorts of scams and system-gaming, and the authorities are *much* more likely to be jaded and unhelpful if you have the misfortune to be from there - has nothing whatsoever to do with "race", necesarily (last I checked Ukranians were "white").
Sorry if I missed the story about the Ukrainian Canadian held in a Ukrainian jail for 12 weeks and Canadian authorities not doing anything.
Link?
Quote from: Josephus on August 12, 2009, 11:16:20 AM
Sorry if I missed the story about the Ukrainian Canadian held in a Ukrainian jail for 12 weeks and Canadian authorities not doing anything.
Link?
Oh so now you are back on white people never get screwed around thing again?
Hey her race may have played a part but I bet shit like that would and does happen to white people even in Canada. Sometimes life sucks.
Quote from: Josephus on August 12, 2009, 11:16:20 AM
Sorry if I missed the story about the Ukrainian Canadian held in a Ukrainian jail for 12 weeks and Canadian authorities not doing anything.
Link?
The Canadian authorities didn't do nothing in this case. They sent the passport to Kenyan immigration for prosecution.
Quote from: Josephus on August 12, 2009, 11:16:20 AM
Sorry if I missed the story about the Ukrainian Canadian held in a Ukrainian jail for 12 weeks and Canadian authorities not doing anything.
Link?
Not claiming that happened. Merely that in other ways, they have demonstrated an unwillingness to be helpful or take any pains when the person seeking service was identifiably Ukranian-Canadian, whereas someone of a different European background or a long-term Canadian would expect (and receive) more prompt and better treatment.
The reason isn't hard to see: they are used to certain areas in the world being productive of various sorts of scams. In Ukraine, these days, scamming the gov't is more or less a way of life. So if you come to the Canadian authorities there with a request for help, they just assume you are up to something, rather than leaping to assist you. This leads to lengthy delays and the requirement for much prodding and reassurance before they will do *anything*.
My source here is personal knowledge from my wife's family members.
Quote from: Josephus on August 12, 2009, 10:52:40 AM
This wouldn't have happened if she was white.
I am still waiting for the Foreign Affairs's office to help that white woman from Quebec who had the brillant idea to marry a Saudi national, follow him in Saudi Arabia, and have a kid with him there.
Now that she awaken from her pipe dreams, she wants to come back. Aha, good luck. :mellow:
Quote from: Malthus on August 12, 2009, 11:26:50 AM
My source here is personal knowledge from my wife's family members.
Your wife is a black Ukrainian-Canadian?
:lol:
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2009, 10:54:18 AM
Quote from: Josephus on August 12, 2009, 10:52:40 AM
This wouldn't have happened if she was white.
I bet bad things sometimes happen to white people to.
absolutely. Canada is equal opportunity when it comes to abandoning our citizens overseas.
William Sampson was a small time bootlegger in Ridyah, but was detained and tortured because of fabricated terrorism connections. the Canadian government trusted the word of the Saudis and Sampson rotted for two and a half years in an Arabian jail.
Oh, allright.
I'll retract the white argument.
But first this:
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/679862 (http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/679862)
CHRISTOPHER HUME
The DNA tests Suaad Hagi Mohamud was forced to undergo last week proved not only that she is who she says she is, but also that she is Canadian.
The point seems lost on the current federal government, which has been content to let her twist in the Kenyan wind for three months while it did everything possible not to sort out the details of a case of mistaken identity.
But it is a point worth remembering, especially in the face of mounting evidence that Prime Minister Stephen Harper's regime is determined to create different categories of citizenship. According to the administration's new meaning of Canadian citizenship, the main qualification is not residence, place of birth, oath of allegiance or passport – it's the colour of your skin.
And in Canada today, God help you if you're not white, because the federal government sure won't. Indeed, that government creates these problems in the first place.
Mohamud's case is a perfect example; her nightmare began when a functionary in the Canadian High Commission in Nairobi agreed with a Kenyan airport official and decided she wasn't the woman whose photograph appears in her passport. We were told, incredibly, that it had something to do with her lips. She was immediately declared an "imposter" and Kenyan authorities were asked to prosecute her.
Although she produced all kinds of identification – including a driver's licence, OHIP card, social insurance card and a Canadian citizenship certificate to boot – her fate was sealed. The poor woman even spent time in a Kenyan jail, the horror of which one can only begin to imagine.
Meanwhile, her 12-year-old son – clearly another figment of her imagination – languished in Toronto, wondering if, not when, his mother would be able to return home.
Months after Mohamud's ordeal began and even now that its falsity has been exposed, no one in Harper's government has said a word, let alone apologized.
This isn't just another political scandal; this is cause for deep national shame. This smacks not just of prejudice, but of apartheid.
The whole episode, don't forget, began and ended with Canadian officialdom. Even if one accepts that bureaucrats in a far-flung posting make stupid mistakes such as this, the elected government's response has turned that error into something wholly different, namely a matter of policy. Whether that policy is official or not, it's now clear that only certain Canadians can count on the protection of the federal government.
Had Mohamud been a white mother from Leaside, you can rest assured that Harper himself would have led the charge to have her repatriated.
And we're not talking about the Omar Khadrs, or the Maher Arars, men suspected of real or imaginary ties to terrorist organizations. We're dealing with a single mom who produced her Shoppers Drug Mart Optimum card and even receipts from a local dry cleaners.
But Canadian High Commission first secretary Liliane Khadour wrote to Kenyan immigration authorities, saying: "We have carried out conclusive investigations including an interview and have confirmed that the person brought to (us) on suspicion of being an imposter is not the rightful holder of the aforementioned Canadian passport."
Well – guess what? – Khadour couldn't have been more wrong if she tried.
Even yesterday, after the results of Mohamud's DNA tests were made public, not a syllable on the subject was uttered by anyone in government. Their silence speaks volumes. And what it says isn't pretty: Canada, that bastion of tolerance, that refuge of civility, that exemplar of multiculturalism, no longer belongs to its citizens. It is not ours, it's theirs. We just live here.
Wow, that Chris Hume guy is quite the asshole, isn't he?
Well at least she wasn't murder by a Canadian Healthcare Death Panel.
QuoteBut it is a point worth remembering, especially in the face of mounting evidence that Prime Minister Stephen Harper's regime is determined to create different categories of citizenship. According to the administration's new meaning of Canadian citizenship, the main qualification is not residence, place of birth, oath of allegiance or passport – it's the colour of your skin.
And in Canada today, God help you if you're not white, because the federal government sure won't. Indeed, that government creates these problems in the first place.
I bet his analysis would be completely different if the Liberals were in power.
QuoteThis isn't just another political scandal; this is cause for deep national shame. This smacks not just of prejudice, but of apartheid.
What? It also wasn't genocide? Hyperbole fail.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2009, 12:41:23 PM
Well at least she wasn't murder by a Canadian Healthcare Death Panel.
:lol:
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2009, 12:50:34 PM
What? It also wasn't genocide? Hyperbole fail.
She didn't die, did she. ;) :lol:
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2009, 11:04:00 AMSounds like she just got screwed to me via bureaucratic BS. That is always a danger you have to consider when you go abroad...especially to places like Kenya where things have been a bit sketchy of late.
That's a fucking retarded statement from you Valmy. Seriously.
You should consider that your own government decides not to help you if you go to places like Kenya?
Quote from: Berkut on August 12, 2009, 12:33:18 PM
Wow, that Chris Hume guy is quite the asshole, isn't he?
on this topic, yeah, he's playing one quite well.
he's a very good urban affairs/architecture critic.
but onto the subject, I think its more to do with bureaucratic irresponsibility than a government-sponsored program of applied racism. for example, Harper and co. implemented a mass rescue of Lebanese Canadians (50,000?) in 2006. if he was raciss, he would not do that (nor would he be aggressively courting immigrant groups to be part of his Conservative Party.)
now, whoever fucked up here, I hope they do get disciplined.
Quote from: Jacob on August 12, 2009, 01:03:21 PM
That's a fucking retarded statement from you Valmy. Seriously.
You should consider that your own government decides not to help you if you go to places like Kenya?
He'll probably be fine, as long as he goes within the next 4-8 years. They wouldn't want to embarrass the God-Emperor.
Quote from: Jacob on August 12, 2009, 01:03:21 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2009, 11:04:00 AMSounds like she just got screwed to me via bureaucratic BS. That is always a danger you have to consider when you go abroad...especially to places like Kenya where things have been a bit sketchy of late.
That's a fucking retarded statement from you Valmy. Seriously.
You should consider that your own government decides not to help you if you go to places like Kenya?
Yes not going to North Korea and assuming I can just rely on my government to bail me out if I get screwed around by the local authorities is totally retarded. I am now being smart and booking my trip to Pyongyang as I type.
Quote from: Berkut on August 12, 2009, 12:33:18 PM
Wow, that Chris Hume guy is quite the asshole, isn't he?
I don't know who he is, but he certainly paints a rosy picture of how things could be. :wub:
Quote from: Josephus on August 12, 2009, 11:16:20 AM
Sorry if I missed the story about the Ukrainian Canadian held in a Ukrainian jail for 12 weeks and Canadian authorities not doing anything.
Link?
How about the Polish citizen who was tazered and died while in RCMP custody?
Quote from: Jacob on August 12, 2009, 01:03:21 PM
That's a fucking retarded statement from you Valmy. Seriously.
You should consider that your own government decides not to help you if you go to places like Kenya?
These kinds of situations are a minefield for the government though. Canadian citizens frequently get into legal trouble in foreign countries. And most of the time it is well deserved. It's very difficult for Canadian consular officials to be able to validate someone's claim of opression in a foreign country when they have zero resources on the ground.
And the example of Lebanon is interesting because I think the government got quite a bit of heat for that after spending millions of dollars to evacuate people, only to find most of them returned within a year.
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2009, 01:16:21 PM
Quote from: Josephus on August 12, 2009, 11:16:20 AM
Sorry if I missed the story about the Ukrainian Canadian held in a Ukrainian jail for 12 weeks and Canadian authorities not doing anything.
Link?
How about the Polish citizen who was tazered and died while in RCMP custody?
It wasn't the right Pole sadly :(
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2009, 01:22:16 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 12, 2009, 01:03:21 PM
That's a fucking retarded statement from you Valmy. Seriously.
You should consider that your own government decides not to help you if you go to places like Kenya?
These kinds of situations are a minefield for the government though. Canadian citizens frequently get into legal trouble in foreign countries. And most of the time it is well deserved. It's very difficult for Canadian consular officials to be able to validate someone's claim of opression in a foreign country when they have zero resources on the ground.
And the example of Lebanon is interesting because I think the government got quite a bit of heat for that after spending millions of dollars to evacuate people, only to find most of them returned within a year.
I suspect that the complaint is that they are willing to try harder for some people than for others. I suspect this is true - in this case not so much based on "race" but rather on posting. If you are posted to a place where a lot of scamming goes on, you are more likely to be less solicitous.
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2009, 01:10:21 PMYes not going to North Korea and assuming I can just rely on my government to bail me out if I get screwed around by the local authorities is totally retarded. I am now being smart and booking my trip to Pyongyang as I type.
I guess we have very different ideas about what a government is supposed to do. For me, one of the first duties of a government is to help out its citizens abroad if they get in trouble.
I dunno... maybe it's a cultural thing.
A similar situation is getting a lot of press in Sweden after a "swedish" journalist was imprisoned in Eritrea.
Shocking news revealed that the filthy eritrean barbarians would not release him even after a signature campaign in Sweden managed to get one HUNDRED THOUSAND signatures to a document DEMANDING his release. Only proves there are at the very least 100,000 idiots in Sweden.
Fucker has dual citizenship and gained entry on his eritrean passport. Let him fucking rot.
That he's a journalist only makes the story the much sweeter.
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2009, 01:22:16 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 12, 2009, 01:03:21 PM
That's a fucking retarded statement from you Valmy. Seriously.
You should consider that your own government decides not to help you if you go to places like Kenya?
These kinds of situations are a minefield for the government though. Canadian citizens frequently get into legal trouble in foreign countries. And most of the time it is well deserved. It's very difficult for Canadian consular officials to be able to validate someone's claim of opression in a foreign country when they have zero resources on the ground.
Beeb, I don't disagree with you.
But this isn't a case where a person was trying to smuggle dope from Turkey. Or rape a teenager in Thailand.. This was simply a woman, with family, including a son, in Canada; whom Canadian authorities in Kenya decided to leave a languish in a jail cause they did not believe she was Canadian...when she clearly was.
Think about that. She did not break any laws.
Quote from: saskganesh on August 12, 2009, 12:11:40 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2009, 10:54:18 AM
Quote from: Josephus on August 12, 2009, 10:52:40 AM
This wouldn't have happened if she was white.
I bet bad things sometimes happen to white people to.
absolutely. Canada is equal opportunity when it comes to abandoning our citizens overseas.
William Sampson was a small time bootlegger in Ridyah, but was detained and tortured because of fabricated terrorism connections. the Canadian government trusted the word of the Saudis and Sampson rotted for two and a half years in an Arabian jail.
And he deserved it.
Quote from: Slargos on August 12, 2009, 01:30:27 PM
A similar situation is getting a lot of press in Sweden after a "swedish" journalist was imprisoned in Eritrea.
Shocking news revealed that the filthy eritrean barbarians would not release him even after a signature campaign in Sweden managed to get one HUNDRED THOUSAND signatures to a document DEMANDING his release. Only proves there are at the very least 100,000 idiots in Sweden.
Fucker has dual citizenship and gained entry on his eritrean passport. Let him fucking rot.
That he's a journalist only makes the story the much sweeter.
As a journalist with dual citizenship, I shall ignore this. ;)
Quote from: Jacob on August 12, 2009, 01:30:27 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2009, 01:10:21 PMYes not going to North Korea and assuming I can just rely on my government to bail me out if I get screwed around by the local authorities is totally retarded. I am now being smart and booking my trip to Pyongyang as I type.
I guess we have very different ideas about what a government is supposed to do. For me, one of the first duties of a government is to help out its citizens abroad if they get in trouble.
I dunno... maybe it's a cultural thing.
Within reason.
When people put themselves in sticky situations it's unreasonable to expect the Government to pull off a daring rescue from your own stupidity.
It's nice if they do, but I don't think you should expect it.
Every time a sob story is posted about the poor refugees who are stranded on vacation in the country they "fled" from when new shit breaks loose, I get a hearty laugh.
Quote from: Josephus on August 12, 2009, 12:27:02 PM
Oh, allright.
I'll retract the white argument.
But first this:
:lol:
Well, Chris Hume certainly seems to want to make the white argument for you, doesn't he? Then again, it's the Star, so what do you expect?
Quote from: Josephus on August 12, 2009, 01:32:12 PM
Quote from: Slargos on August 12, 2009, 01:30:27 PM
A similar situation is getting a lot of press in Sweden after a "swedish" journalist was imprisoned in Eritrea.
Shocking news revealed that the filthy eritrean barbarians would not release him even after a signature campaign in Sweden managed to get one HUNDRED THOUSAND signatures to a document DEMANDING his release. Only proves there are at the very least 100,000 idiots in Sweden.
Fucker has dual citizenship and gained entry on his eritrean passport. Let him fucking rot.
That he's a journalist only makes the story the much sweeter.
As a journalist with dual citizenship, I shall ignore this. ;)
Just remember when you smuggle drugs into Malta you're on your own. :mad:
Quote from: Jacob on August 12, 2009, 01:30:27 PM
I guess we have very different ideas about what a government is supposed to do. For me, one of the first duties of a government is to help out its citizens abroad if they get in trouble.
I dunno... maybe it's a cultural thing.
Um...what a bizarre thing to say. Obviously I do consider it one of the first duties of a government to help out its citizens abroad.
That you might consider it possible that your government might fail to do so and should avoid situations where the only thing between you and catastrophe is the quick action by federal bureaucrats is pretty much a given. Sometimes the system fails.
When you go abroad you are taking a risk, particularly going to a place like Russia or Pakistan or whatever.
Quote from: Josephus on August 12, 2009, 01:32:12 PM
Quote from: Slargos on August 12, 2009, 01:30:27 PM
A similar situation is getting a lot of press in Sweden after a "swedish" journalist was imprisoned in Eritrea.
Shocking news revealed that the filthy eritrean barbarians would not release him even after a signature campaign in Sweden managed to get one HUNDRED THOUSAND signatures to a document DEMANDING his release. Only proves there are at the very least 100,000 idiots in Sweden.
Fucker has dual citizenship and gained entry on his eritrean passport. Let him fucking rot.
That he's a journalist only makes the story the much sweeter.
As a journalist with dual citizenship, I shall ignore this. ;)
If you're ever stupid enough to go somewhere you know there is reasonable risk of your being imprisoned on trumped up charges, I will laugh at you too. :P
Quote from: Josephus on August 12, 2009, 01:30:54 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2009, 01:22:16 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 12, 2009, 01:03:21 PM
That's a fucking retarded statement from you Valmy. Seriously.
You should consider that your own government decides not to help you if you go to places like Kenya?
These kinds of situations are a minefield for the government though. Canadian citizens frequently get into legal trouble in foreign countries. And most of the time it is well deserved. It's very difficult for Canadian consular officials to be able to validate someone's claim of opression in a foreign country when they have zero resources on the ground.
Beeb, I don't disagree with you.
But this isn't a case where a person was trying to smuggle dope from Turkey. Or rape a teenager in Thailand.. This was simply a woman, with family, including a son, in Canada; whom Canadian authorities in Kenya decided to leave a languish in a jail cause they did not believe she was Canadian...when she clearly was.
Think about that. She did not break any laws.
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.
QuoteOur demand is very simple: Free Dawit Isaak. Our cause will be powerless without your help. We need your name in the fight for Isaak's release. Every added name to the list s a small step closer to freedom for Dawit Isaak. Show your commitment. Go into any of our web sites and sign the petition.
What's even more hilarious is that he would probably be released in an instant if we simply turned off the foreign aid to those fuckers for even a day.
Signatures. Hah.
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2009, 01:22:16 PMThese kinds of situations are a minefield for the government though. Canadian citizens frequently get into legal trouble in foreign countries. And most of the time it is well deserved. It's very difficult for Canadian consular officials to be able to validate someone's claim of opression in a foreign country when they have zero resources on the ground.
Sure, but that does not apply to this case by any stretch, which is why it is outrageous. She had her Canadian ID and she had tons of circumstantial support like all kinds of paraphernalia from her life in Canada not to mention a child and employer in Canada verifying her identity. The Canadian government shockingly failed their duty in this case.
QuoteAnd the example of Lebanon is interesting because I think the government got quite a bit of heat for that after spending millions of dollars to evacuate people, only to find most of them returned within a year.
It didn't get any heat from me. And whatever that situation, it is entirely different from this scandal.
Quote from: Malthus on August 12, 2009, 11:13:57 AM
Heh, anyone thinking this is a "racial issue" should try dealing with the Canadian immigration authorities in Ukraine. :lol:
Fact is, some places in the world are more productive of various sorts of scams and system-gaming, and the authorities are *much* more likely to be jaded and unhelpful if you have the misfortune to be from there - has nothing whatsoever to do with "race", necesarily (last I checked Ukranians were "white").
Really, Malty. Ukes are only white by the same loose definition that puts mestizos and moors in the category.
Next, you'll be claiming Russians are also white.
Who do you think you're kidding?
Quote from: Jacob on August 12, 2009, 01:30:27 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2009, 01:10:21 PMYes not going to North Korea and assuming I can just rely on my government to bail me out if I get screwed around by the local authorities is totally retarded. I am now being smart and booking my trip to Pyongyang as I type.
I guess we have very different ideas about what a government is supposed to do. For me, one of the first duties of a government is to help out its citizens abroad if they get in trouble.
I dunno... maybe it's a cultural thing.
It must be.
Quote from: Slargos on August 12, 2009, 01:33:36 PM
Within reason.
When people put themselves in sticky situations it's unreasonable to expect the Government to pull off a daring rescue from your own stupidity.
It's not putting yourself in a sticky situation to go traveling to a country where you follow your governments travel advisory - in this case, the government says "A valid Canadian Passport is required for Canadians intending to visit Kenya", which this woman has.
Quote from: Jacob on August 12, 2009, 01:41:47 PM
It's not putting yourself in a sticky situation to go traveling to a country where you follow your governments travel advisory - in this case, the government says "A valid Canadian Passport is required for Canadians intending to visit Kenya", which this woman has.
I don't think Slargos was saying this particular instance was an example of the situation he was talking about.
Quote from: Slargos on August 12, 2009, 01:40:54 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 12, 2009, 11:13:57 AM
Heh, anyone thinking this is a "racial issue" should try dealing with the Canadian immigration authorities in Ukraine. :lol:
Fact is, some places in the world are more productive of various sorts of scams and system-gaming, and the authorities are *much* more likely to be jaded and unhelpful if you have the misfortune to be from there - has nothing whatsoever to do with "race", necesarily (last I checked Ukranians were "white").
Really, Malty. Ukes are only white by the same loose definition that puts mestizos and moors in the category.
Next, you'll be claiming Russians are also white.
Who do you think you're kidding?
Racists?
Those are I think the only ones who care. :P
Quote from: Slargos on August 12, 2009, 01:38:08 PM
What's even more hilarious is that he would probably be released in an instant if we simply turned off the foreign aid to those fuckers for even a day.
Signatures. Hah.
I'm sure the primary reason for the signature drive is to pressure your government rather than theirs.
Quote from: Slargos on August 12, 2009, 01:40:54 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 12, 2009, 11:13:57 AM
Heh, anyone thinking this is a "racial issue" should try dealing with the Canadian immigration authorities in Ukraine. :lol:
Fact is, some places in the world are more productive of various sorts of scams and system-gaming, and the authorities are *much* more likely to be jaded and unhelpful if you have the misfortune to be from there - has nothing whatsoever to do with "race", necesarily (last I checked Ukranians were "white").
Really, Malty. Ukes are only white by the same loose definition that puts mestizos and moors in the category.
Next, you'll be claiming Russians are also white.
Who do you think you're kidding?
Russians are white.
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2009, 01:34:48 PMUm...what a bizarre thing to say. Obviously I do consider it one of the first duties of a government to help out its citizens abroad.
Well if you do, then I don't understand why you do not think it is outrageous that the government completely failed to help this woman who had done nothing wrong.
QuoteThat you might consider it possible that your government might fail to do so and should avoid situations where the only thing between you and catastrophe is the quick action by federal bureaucrats is pretty much a given. Sometimes the system fails.
In this case the catastrophe was that the government representative decided to deny your identity and your status as a citizen on the flimsiest of pretexts and without any evidence. It has nothing to do with the perfidy or dangers of Kenya. It is not that she decided to hike across the Swat Valley and now has to be ransomed. It was the representative of her own government that failed her spectacularly. And that is a scandal.
QuoteWhen you go abroad you are taking a risk, particularly going to a place like Russia or Pakistan or whatever.
Again, the location of the incident has little to do with the situation. The scandal is that the government representative was the instigator and spectacularly failed in their duty.
Someone decided "she doesn't look like her passport" and asked the local authorities to imprison her. Then they failed to investigate her identity and let her languish for months, in spite of evidence being presented to the contrary.
Quote from: Jacob on August 12, 2009, 01:49:07 PM
Well if you do, then I don't understand why you do not think it is outrageous that the government completely failed to help this woman who had done nothing wrong.
I do think it is outrageous that woman got completely screwed. The Canadian government fucked up big time. Nowhere in this thread did I ever say her situation did not totally suck. In fact I said she got screwed and you called me retarded for it.
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2009, 01:37:46 PMBeeb, I don't disagree with you. 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.
And then you have her family from Canada contact you, you have a lawyer contact you and you have a surfeit of secondary evidence.
Look, I have all sorts of sympathy for embassy staff. I grew up in a diplomat household. I have tons of family friends at DFAIT. That doesn't change the fact that this situation was a major embarrassment and the career of the person responsible should be over.
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2009, 01:37:46 PM
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?
Um yeah. Benefit of the doubt and all that legal shit.
If I'm in a country with a Canadian passport and the authorities in that country say it is forged, I would assume that Canadian Counsul officials will, at the very least, believe me over them. That would be a good starting point in my situation.
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2009, 01:50:44 PMI do think it is outrageous that woman got completely screwed. The Canadian government fucked up big time. Nowhere in this thread did I ever say her situation did not totally suck. In fact I said she got screwed and you called me retarded for it.
You said she got screwed, then qualified it with a "that's the sort of thing you have to consider when you go to places like Kenya." It's the second thing I object to.
When you go to a place like Kenya you consider the possibility of getting screwed by the local government there, and you take comfort in the knowledge that there is an embassy or high commission there and they'll help you out the best they can if you get fucked with egregiously. If your own people fuck you that's entirely unacceptable. It's not the kind of thing where you shrug and go "ah well, shouldn't have gone to Kenya then" - that sentiment is retarded; however, if that's not what you think I'll retract the application of the "retarded" label to you.
Quote from: Jacob on August 12, 2009, 01:52:26 PM
That doesn't change the fact that this situation was a major embarrassment and the career of the person responsible should be over.
Okay, at risk of hijacking the thread, I hate how it has become the kneejerk reaction of people that when a mistake happens the person must be fired, or their career is over, or whatever. Why should it be over? Why should one mistake, even major, cut short a career that has been otherwise exemplary?
This is me probably talking out of my own experiences and feelings, but I have to make all kinds of very important decisions that effect people's lives in the course of my job. I try really hard to make sure all of my decisions are based on evidence and not merely assumption, but I could see how it happens.
Why should the beauraucrat be fired over this mistake? If he or shee is a career civil servant there's no other employer out there.
To my mind there is no question that there has been a screw-up; the question is what motivated it. The article claims it was racism, pure and simple. I think it isn't so straightforward as that, but more likely to have been caused by the consulate in issue (and other consulates in similar circumstances) being bombarded with, and fatigued by, various fraudulent claims, making them slow to react to the genuine ones.
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2009, 01:59:20 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 12, 2009, 01:52:26 PM
That doesn't change the fact that this situation was a major embarrassment and the career of the person responsible should be over.
Okay, at risk of hijacking the thread, I hate how it has become the kneejerk reaction of people that when a mistake happens the person must be fired, or their career is over, or whatever. Why should it be over? Why should one mistake, even major, cut short a career that has been otherwise exemplary?
This is me probably talking out of my own experiences and feelings, but I have to make all kinds of very important decisions that effect people's lives in the course of my job. I try really hard to make sure all of my decisions are based on evidence and not merely assumption, but I could see how it happens.
Why should the beauraucrat be fired over this mistake? If he or shee is a career civil servant there's no other employer out there.
Because they made a disgraceful error that embarrasses the nation and the government. At the very least, there should be no prospect of promotion.
Quote from: Josephus on August 12, 2009, 01:56:50 PM
Um yeah. Benefit of the doubt and all that legal shit.
If I'm in a country with a Canadian passport and the authorities in that country say it is forged, I would assume that Canadian Counsul officials will, at the very least, believe me over them. That would be a good starting point in my situation.
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.
The debate becomes that it appears this woman could and did prove her identity, and yet the officials continued to do little to nothing.
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2009, 01:59:20 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 12, 2009, 01:52:26 PM
That doesn't change the fact that this situation was a major embarrassment and the career of the person responsible should be over.
Okay, at risk of hijacking the thread, I hate how it has become the kneejerk reaction of people that when a mistake happens the person must be fired, or their career is over, or whatever. Why should it be over? Why should one mistake, even major, cut short a career that has been otherwise exemplary?
This is me probably talking out of my own experiences and feelings, but I have to make all kinds of very important decisions that effect people's lives in the course of my job. I try really hard to make sure all of my decisions are based on evidence and not merely assumption, but I could see how it happens.
Why should the beauraucrat be fired over this mistake? If he or shee is a career civil servant there's no other employer out there.
The matter allegedly reached the Ministerial level, so it isn't an issue of some lowly career bureaucrat making a mistake. The issue is whether it is a significant enough scandal for the Minister to resign.
Quote from: Jacob on August 12, 2009, 02:01:09 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2009, 01:59:20 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 12, 2009, 01:52:26 PM
That doesn't change the fact that this situation was a major embarrassment and the career of the person responsible should be over.
Okay, at risk of hijacking the thread, I hate how it has become the kneejerk reaction of people that when a mistake happens the person must be fired, or their career is over, or whatever. Why should it be over? Why should one mistake, even major, cut short a career that has been otherwise exemplary?
This is me probably talking out of my own experiences and feelings, but I have to make all kinds of very important decisions that effect people's lives in the course of my job. I try really hard to make sure all of my decisions are based on evidence and not merely assumption, but I could see how it happens.
Why should the beauraucrat be fired over this mistake? If he or shee is a career civil servant there's no other employer out there.
Because they made a disgraceful error that embarrasses the nation and the government. At the very least, there should be no prospect of promotion.
Why? Now you've backed away from firing, but why "no prospect of promotion"? So no matter what this person does over the next 10, 20 years they should never, ever be promoted?
I'm not saying nothing should happen, but why ruin someone's entire life because of a single mistake? Especially a mistake not motivated by malice or ill will, but simply a poor decision honestly made?
Quote from: Neil on August 12, 2009, 01:31:33 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on August 12, 2009, 12:11:40 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2009, 10:54:18 AM
Quote from: Josephus on August 12, 2009, 10:52:40 AM
This wouldn't have happened if she was white.
I bet bad things sometimes happen to white people to.
absolutely. Canada is equal opportunity when it comes to abandoning our citizens overseas.
William Sampson was a small time bootlegger in Ridyah, but was detained and tortured because of fabricated terrorism connections. the Canadian government trusted the word of the Saudis and Sampson rotted for two and a half years in an Arabian jail.
And he deserved it.
no way in hell. deported for haram behaviour maybe, but not taking the rap for al-queda activities and then later swapped for 5 gitmo terrorists.
Quote from: Malthus on August 12, 2009, 02:03:30 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2009, 01:59:20 PM
Quote from: Jacob on August 12, 2009, 01:52:26 PM
That doesn't change the fact that this situation was a major embarrassment and the career of the person responsible should be over.
Okay, at risk of hijacking the thread, I hate how it has become the kneejerk reaction of people that when a mistake happens the person must be fired, or their career is over, or whatever. Why should it be over? Why should one mistake, even major, cut short a career that has been otherwise exemplary?
This is me probably talking out of my own experiences and feelings, but I have to make all kinds of very important decisions that effect people's lives in the course of my job. I try really hard to make sure all of my decisions are based on evidence and not merely assumption, but I could see how it happens.
Why should the beauraucrat be fired over this mistake? If he or shee is a career civil servant there's no other employer out there.
The matter allegedly reached the Ministerial level, so it isn't an issue of some lowly career bureaucrat making a mistake. The issue is whether it is a significant enough scandal for the Minister to resign.
That's a whole different matter. And besides, a minister resigning has often been merely a temporary setback in some political careers, and not as Jacob put it "the career of the person responsible should be over."
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2009, 02:02:20 PM
Quote from: Josephus on August 12, 2009, 01:56:50 PM
Um yeah. Benefit of the doubt and all that legal shit.
If I'm in a country with a Canadian passport and the authorities in that country say it is forged, I would assume that Canadian Counsul officials will, at the very least, believe me over them. That would be a good starting point in my situation.
I disagree with that. If an accused person tells me the sun rises in the east I always demand proof of that statement.
Should this say the west? :huh:
Quote from: Jacob on August 12, 2009, 01:57:25 PM
You said she got screwed, then qualified it with a "that's the sort of thing you have to consider when you go to places like Kenya." It's the second thing I object to.
I think you took that stronger than how I meant. I did not mean that somehow she wasn't right for expecting the Canadian authorities not to screw her or that that she somehow deserved what she got.
All I meant that putting your life in the hands of your government is a risk that you have to consider when going abroad.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 12, 2009, 02:07:07 PM
Should this say the west? :huh:
Um...if he said west that would not be much of a statement then wouldn't it? Any logical person would deman proof if somebody claimed something obviously false. He is saying he will demand proof even when something seems to be self-evidently true.
Quote from: Malthus on August 12, 2009, 02:00:01 PM
To my mind there is no question that there has been a screw-up; the question is what motivated it. The article claims it was racism, pure and simple. I think it isn't so straightforward as that, but more likely to have been caused by the consulate in issue (and other consulates in similar circumstances) being bombarded with, and fatigued by, various fraudulent claims, making them slow to react to the genuine ones.
I'm not that interested in what caused it, beyond minimizing that something like this happens again. I'm not jumping aboard any "it's because she's BLACK!" boats - maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, but whether it was or not the situation is a disgrace.
Perhaps there are mitigating circumstances. If so, we need to make sure those mitigating circumstances don't cause problems for other Canadians in the future.
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2009, 01:59:20 PM
Why should the beauraucrat be fired over this mistake? If he or she is a career civil servant there's no other employer out there.
if a bureaucrat needs to be fired -- like if this was not just a mistake and actually reflective of something far deeper- they are entitled to the usual job loss protections.
careerism is not a defense.
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2009, 02:04:51 PMWhy? Now you've backed away from firing, but why "no prospect of promotion"? So no matter what this person does over the next 10, 20 years they should never, ever be promoted?
I'm not saying nothing should happen, but why ruin someone's entire life because of a single mistake? Especially a mistake not motivated by malice or ill will, but simply a poor decision honestly made?
Well, it depends really... if she shopped it up her chain of command and the inaction lies with someone else then that's fine. But someone, somewhere in the chain made a bad call and there should be repercussions for that. If that means the minister responsible has to resign, that's perfectly fine. If instead some deputy minister decided to deprioritise it, then he or she can take the bullet or if the "lowly bureaucrat" somehow did fuck up then he or she should pay the price. Someone fucked up and someone has to take responsibility for it, one way or another.
That said, I do find it pretty amusing to hear "hy ruin someone's entire life because of a single mistake" coming from you, given your usual attitude about mistakes and punishment :)
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2009, 02:02:20 PMThe debate becomes that it appears this woman could and did prove her identity, and yet the officials continued to do little to nothing.
Yes, this is the crux of the disgrace, I agree.
And if they actually did have proper reasons to do what they did (or rather didn't) then okay, I'll back down. But right now it seems like a disgraceful mistake was made.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 12, 2009, 02:07:07 PMShould this say the west? :huh:
You're pretty slow :lol:
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2009, 02:10:59 PMAll I meant that putting your life in the hands of your government is a risk that you have to consider when going abroad.
I still find that kind of offensive for those of us living in 1st world countries. It should not be a risk you should have to consider, the government should just not fuck up like that; and if it does it's a scandal. That said, the vehemence in my statements are directed at the government not you.
What's with the DNA test? Couldn't find any mention in the two articles.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 12, 2009, 01:46:45 PM
Quote from: Slargos on August 12, 2009, 01:38:08 PM
What's even more hilarious is that he would probably be released in an instant if we simply turned off the foreign aid to those fuckers for even a day.
Signatures. Hah.
I'm sure the primary reason for the signature drive is to pressure your government rather than theirs.
Perhaps. It just seems convoluted to hand over the signatures to the Eritrean embassy then.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 12, 2009, 02:34:11 PM
What's with the DNA test? Couldn't find any mention in the two articles.
Yeah, that was the day before's news. Here: (full story source: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2009/08/10/kenya-canadian-dna.html (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2009/08/10/kenya-canadian-dna.html)
The lawyer for a Canadian woman stranded in Kenya said he will file a motion in Federal Court on Tuesday, asking the federal government to issue an emergency passport so she can return home after a DNA test confirmed her identity.
Raoul Boulakia, the lawyer for Suaad Haji Mohamud, said he received the genetic test report on Monday afternoon, and it proves that she is the mother of a 12-year-old boy living in Toronto, confirming who she says she is.
"The DNA test says that it's 99.99 per cent established that she is the mother of her child, Mohamed," he told CBC News.
Thanks Josephus. How do we know the child's mother is a Canadian citizen?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 12, 2009, 02:52:31 PM
Thanks Josephus. How do we know the child's mother is a Canadian citizen?
QuoteShe then went to the Canadian high commission in an effort to prove her identity. She showed them her Ontario driver's licence, her health card, social insurance card and a Canadian citizenship certificate.
Mohamud also had other pieces that would seemingly prove her identity, such as her credit card, bank cards and a letter from her Toronto employer.[/i]
plus testimonials from her employer, people in T.O. as an immigrant, there's a file on her already. she has a history here.
and the DNA test
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 12, 2009, 02:52:31 PM
Thanks Josephus. How do we know the child's mother is a Canadian citizen?
I don't think that was in doubt, Yi. That's documented. They just needed to prove that the woman languishing in a Kenyan jail was who she said she was, the boy's mother.
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2009, 02:12:20 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 12, 2009, 02:07:07 PM
Should this say the west? :huh:
Um...if he said west that would not be much of a statement then wouldn't it? Any logical person would deman proof if somebody claimed something obviously false. He is saying he will demand proof even when something seems to be self-evidently true.
Sounds like a huge waste of time. I'd rather focus on things that are questionable rather than those that are self-evidently true or self-evidently false.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 12, 2009, 03:16:52 PMSounds like a huge waste of time. I'd rather focus on things that are questionable rather than those that are self-evidently true or self-evidently false.
Your faith in your ability to determine what is self-evident and what is not is... inflated.
Quote from: saskganesh on August 12, 2009, 02:06:09 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 12, 2009, 01:31:33 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on August 12, 2009, 12:11:40 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2009, 10:54:18 AM
Quote from: Josephus on August 12, 2009, 10:52:40 AM
This wouldn't have happened if she was white.
I bet bad things sometimes happen to white people to.
absolutely. Canada is equal opportunity when it comes to abandoning our citizens overseas.
William Sampson was a small time bootlegger in Ridyah, but was detained and tortured because of fabricated terrorism connections. the Canadian government trusted the word of the Saudis and Sampson rotted for two and a half years in an Arabian jail.
And he deserved it.
no way in hell. deported for haram behaviour maybe, but not taking the rap for al-queda activities and then later swapped for 5 gitmo terrorists.
Don't break the law in the Third World.
Quote from: Jacob on August 12, 2009, 03:18:33 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 12, 2009, 03:16:52 PMSounds like a huge waste of time. I'd rather focus on things that are questionable rather than those that are self-evidently true or self-evidently false.
Your faith in your ability to determine what is self-evident and what is not is... inflated.
The sun rises in the east seems like a textbook example of self evident.
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?
Quote from: Jacob on August 12, 2009, 02:18:32 PM
Well, it depends really... if she shopped it up her chain of command and the inaction lies with someone else then that's fine. But someone, somewhere in the chain made a bad call and there should be repercussions for that. If that means the minister responsible has to resign, that's perfectly fine. If instead some deputy minister decided to deprioritise it, then he or she can take the bullet or if the "lowly bureaucrat" somehow did fuck up then he or she should pay the price. Someone fucked up and someone has to take responsibility for it, one way or another.
That said, I do find it pretty amusing to hear "hy ruin someone's entire life because of a single mistake" coming from you, given your usual attitude about mistakes and punishment :)
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. :huh:
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.
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.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 12, 2009, 03:16:52 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2009, 02:12:20 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 12, 2009, 02:07:07 PM
Should this say the west? :huh:
Um...if he said west that would not be much of a statement then wouldn't it? Any logical person would deman proof if somebody claimed something obviously false. He is saying he will demand proof even when something seems to be self-evidently true.
Sounds like a huge waste of time. I'd rather focus on things that are questionable rather than those that are self-evidently true or self-evidently false.
I'm sorry, but :rolleyes:
Clearly the "sun rises in the west" line was hyperbole, and I'm not going to demand proof of that which is "self-evidently true".
But very few things in life are self-evidently true. The much more likely example is a person accused of a crime gives information that could possibly, or even plausibly, be true. I will disregard that information without external verification.
e.g. An accused says he needs to be given bail so he can attend his job, and gives the name of the employer and his hours. Get the employer on the phone, or get me a paystub or other such proof, because otherwise I'm not going to believe you.
Sorry if this has been brought up already, but I'm coming into it late.
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2009, 01:22:16 PM
These kinds of situations are a minefield for the government though. Canadian citizens frequently get into legal trouble in foreign countries. And most of the time it is well deserved. It's very difficult for Canadian consular officials to be able to validate someone's claim of opression in a foreign country when they have zero resources on the ground.
This isn't what happened, is it? She was who she claimed to be. She held all the appropriate paperwork, and then some, and still was abandoned by her government.
I understand all the other problems, but this woman didn't do anything to warrant the way this was handled. Kenyan bureaucrats made a mistake in her identity, and Canadian officials waved it on without looking into it at all. (I know they claim to have looked into it, but a single phone call to dirrectory assistance would have at least shown that they needed to consider that she was telling the truth.)
This particular situation is appalling, and indefensible, so far as I'm concerned. Thirty minutes of the consular's time would have save this woman and her family 12 weeks of hell.
Quote from: merithyn on August 12, 2009, 05:05:36 PM
Thirty minutes of the consular's time would have save this woman and her family 12 weeks of hell.
:yeahright:
Please tell me how this could have been solved in 30 minutes (or else your pizza is free!).
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2009, 01:37:46 PM
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? :huh:
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2009, 05:08:55 PM
:yeahright:
Please tell me how this could have been solved in 30 minutes (or else your pizza is free!).
I didn't say solved. I said mitigated. Within 30 minutes, a call could have been made to Canadian directory assistance, to her place of employment, and to her home in Canada. While these calls would not have proven she is who she claimed to be, it would have given that consular enough information to continue to look into this, rather than just assuming that all of the information she provided (receipts from her local dry cleaners, included) was trumped up.
Within 30 minutes, he or she could have asked for a picture of the woman to be faxed to Kenya from her place of employment, or somewhere else for that matter. (Every job I've worked at for the last eight years have taken my picture for identity purposes, so chances are her employer had one.)
Enough information to keep the woman out of jail, and to expedite getting her back home. Maybe not conclusive proof, but certainly enough to determine if she warranted that additional step.
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2009, 05:08:55 PMPlease tell me how this could have been solved in 30 minutes (or else your pizza is free!).
"You say you have a job in Canada? Well then, let's call your employer and have them confirm who you are. When that's done, we'll call your alleged son and see if he recognizes you."
"Oh... they say you are who you are, maybe we shouldn't hand you over to Kenyan authorities and ask them to prosecute you."
That wouldn't take too long.
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2009, 03:49:40 PMI'm sorry, but :rolleyes:
Clearly the "sun rises in the west" line was hyperbole, and I'm not going to demand proof of that which is "self-evidently true".
But very few things in life are self-evidently true. The much more likely example is a person accused of a crime gives information that could possibly, or even plausibly, be true. I will disregard that information without external verification.
e.g. An accused says he needs to be given bail so he can attend his job, and gives the name of the employer and his hours. Get the employer on the phone, or get me a paystub or other such proof, because otherwise I'm not going to believe you.
Yeah, I'm with BB here. Tim's being a retard and entirely missing the point.
Quote from: Berkut on August 12, 2009, 03:34:34 PM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2009, 02:02:20 PM
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. :(
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2009, 03:46:09 PMWhat 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. :huh:
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.
QuoteI 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."
QuoteRemember 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.
Quote from: merithyn on August 12, 2009, 05:19:50 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2009, 02:02:20 PM
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.
Quote from: Jacob on August 12, 2009, 05:27:33 PM
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!"
Quote from: merithyn on August 12, 2009, 05:09:12 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2009, 01:37:46 PM
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? :huh:
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.
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2009, 05:31:11 PM
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?
Quote from: merithyn on August 12, 2009, 05:34:53 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 12, 2009, 05:38:54 PMA 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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 12, 2009, 05:38:54 PM
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?
Quote from: merithyn on August 12, 2009, 05:42:20 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 12, 2009, 05:38:54 PM
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).
Quote from: Jacob on August 12, 2009, 05:40:57 PM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2009, 05:47:10 PM
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?
Quote from: merithyn on August 12, 2009, 05:42:20 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 12, 2009, 05:38:54 PM
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.
Quote from: Neil on August 12, 2009, 05:56:37 PM
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 :)
Quote from: merithyn on August 12, 2009, 05:58:08 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 12, 2009, 05:56:37 PM
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 :)
I rather think not. Remember that, as a male, gray is a sign of experience and distinction. As such, harshly judging those who dye their hair remains my eternal perogative. Especially those who dye their hair with kool-aid, like garbon.
Quote from: Neil on August 12, 2009, 06:05:09 PM
I rather think not. Remember that, as a male, gray is a sign of experience and distinction. As such, harshly judging those who dye their hair remains my eternal perogative. Especially those who dye their hair with kool-aid, like garbon.
I can't tell you how much is sucks that you are right. :cry:
Quote from: merithyn on August 12, 2009, 05:56:07 PM
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?
Are you referring to "they turned over her passport for prosecution?"
Quote from: merithyn on August 12, 2009, 06:13:40 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 12, 2009, 06:05:09 PM
I rather think not. Remember that, as a male, gray is a sign of experience and distinction. As such, harshly judging those who dye their hair remains my eternal perogative. Especially those who dye their hair with kool-aid, like garbon.
I can't tell you how much is sucks that you are right. :cry:
My wife agrees with you. Every gray hair I get now is a catastrophe, because it reminds her that we're getting older.
Quote from: Neil on August 12, 2009, 06:05:09 PM
Especially those who dye their hair with kool-aid
I don't think I'd ever do that.
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2009, 05:31:11 PM
Quote from: merithyn on August 12, 2009, 05:09:12 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2009, 01:37:46 PM
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? :huh:
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.
But BB, that is where your argument falls apart. This IS NOT a FULL TRIAl, as you say. You want proof. The Canadian Passport is proof enough. If you doubt its veracity, PROOVE to me that it is a forgery.
Herein lies the issue.
On the Canadian Passport it says:
The bearer of this passport is a Canadian citiizenThat is one.
It also states:
allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance and to afford the bearer such assistance and protectionthat is two.
The Canadian consul should have made every effort to abide these requirements.
She should be treated as a Canadian until proven otherwise.As Merithyn pointed out, a couple of phonecalls could have cleared the matter up. It should not have taken three months. It should not have required a blood test.
I hope they get sued.
Quote from: Josephus on August 12, 2009, 06:46:18 PM
The Canadian consul should have made every effort to abide these requirements. She should be treated as a Canadian until proven otherwise.
It's people like you who get us taken advantage of us. Those requirements only worked when we were a bunch of hateful racists who treated third-world types like animals. These days, we need to use some discetion in order to avoid being up to our armpits in criminal scum.
Then again, they all tend to settle in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver anyways, so to fuckery with the lot of you.
Yeah, that's exactly right - what Josephus said.
The burden of proof should be to prove that she is not who she says she is for the government to not aid her. It should not be on her to prove who she is when she has her passport. The passport is the proof.
You're just wrong. When entering or exiting a country a valid passport isn't some magical document that gives anyone holding it entry.
If you want to enter a country it is up to YOU to prove that you are who you say you are. A passport is only some evidence of your identity. There is no reason the Kenyan government should believe someone holding a passport is the person that passport is issued to.
The one exception is a person entering their home country. There you have a legal right to enter.
Quote from: Neil on August 12, 2009, 06:49:08 PMThose requirements only worked when we were a bunch of hateful racists who treated third-world types like animals. These days, we need to use some discetion in order to avoid being up to our armpits in criminal scum.
Then again, they all tend to settle in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver anyways, so to fuckery with the lot of you.
So then you agree with my original, now retracted slightly, premise that this wouldn't have happened to a cowboy hat wearing dude from Alberta.
Quote from: Josephus on August 12, 2009, 06:52:39 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 12, 2009, 06:49:08 PMThose requirements only worked when we were a bunch of hateful racists who treated third-world types like animals. These days, we need to use some discetion in order to avoid being up to our armpits in criminal scum.
Then again, they all tend to settle in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver anyways, so to fuckery with the lot of you.
So then you agree with my original, now retracted slightly, premise that this wouldn't have happened to a cowboy hat wearing dude from Alberta.
Maybe. Depends on if he had an Eastern European last name. Gypsy scum, and whatnot.
Still, being white is always the best defence. It's not perfect, but at least white people are the group most associated with law, order and civilization.
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2009, 06:51:57 PM
You're just wrong. When entering or exiting a country a valid passport isn't some magical document that gives anyone holding it entry.
If you want to enter a country it is up to YOU to prove that you are who you say you are. A passport is only some evidence of your identity. There is no reason the Kenyan government should believe someone holding a passport is the person that passport is issued to.
The one exception is a person entering their home country. There you have a legal right to enter.
You're obfuscating.
The issue is not what the Kenyans thought or did not think. The issue is what the Canadian government representatives did and did not do. And they failed in their duty to this citizen.
Quote from: Neil on August 12, 2009, 06:56:42 PM
Quote from: Josephus on August 12, 2009, 06:52:39 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 12, 2009, 06:49:08 PMThose requirements only worked when we were a bunch of hateful racists who treated third-world types like animals. These days, we need to use some discetion in order to avoid being up to our armpits in criminal scum.
Then again, they all tend to settle in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver anyways, so to fuckery with the lot of you.
So then you agree with my original, now retracted slightly, premise that this wouldn't have happened to a cowboy hat wearing dude from Alberta.
Maybe. Depends on if he had an Eastern European last name. Gypsy scum, and whatnot.
Still, being white is always the best defence. It's not perfect, but at least white people are the group most associated with law, order and civilization.
It sure would be interesting if you'd drop the schtick and enter the debate once in a while.
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2009, 07:04:08 PM
It sure would be interesting if you'd drop the schtick and enter the debate once in a while.
It's impossible for me to really participate in this, as I don't really have a strong opinion. I'm generally of the opinion that when you travel in terrible places, you take your chances, but that's about it. Even at my best, I'm not really all that sympathetic anyways.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 12, 2009, 06:15:51 PM
Are you referring to "they turned over her passport for prosecution?"
Yes. They didn't do their own investigation first. They simply turned her over for prosecution.
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2009, 06:51:57 PM
You're just wrong. When entering or exiting a country a valid passport isn't some magical document that gives anyone holding it entry.
If you want to enter a country it is up to YOU to prove that you are who you say you are. A passport is only some evidence of your identity. There is no reason the Kenyan government should believe someone holding a passport is the person that passport is issued to.
The one exception is a person entering their home country. There you have a legal right to enter.
Interestingly, I was under the impression that in foreign countries, my nation's consule was my advocate to do help me do this. If I visited Germany and a Germany official said, "Hmm.. this doesn't look like you. Let me contact the U.S. folks to see what they say." My expectation is that once contacted, the U.S. consulate would be my advocate to help me work this situation out.
Since a person is fingerprinted as part of the passport-getting process, it shouldn't take more than a few hours at most to have it all sorted and for me to be on my plane home.
I'm really failing to see how you can back the ministers that allowed this situation to break down to the point that it did, BB. For 12 weeks this woman was left at the mercy of another country's justice system with no advocacy from the Canadian consul. In fact, she was essentially without a nation for the duration of that time because her own country disowned her without just cause, and she was in a foreign nation.
Then, when it came to light that yes, she was who she said she was, who she proved she was numerous times over, who her employer, friends, family, and lawyer all said she was, not even an "Oops, our bad."?
Quote from: merithyn on August 12, 2009, 08:16:54 PM
Since a person is fingerprinted as part of the passport-getting process,
Not in Canada it ain't.
Quote from: Neil on August 12, 2009, 08:21:10 PM
Quote from: merithyn on August 12, 2009, 08:16:54 PM
Since a person is fingerprinted as part of the passport-getting process,
Not in Canada it ain't.
Not in the US either.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on August 12, 2009, 08:57:06 PM
Not in the US either.
Am I confusing the Passport for the Greencard? We've applied for both recently, and I thought we had to do the fingerprinting for the passport now, as well as the greencard.
Well shit. I'd advocate for that for my own protection from this kind of crap.
Quote from: merithyn on August 12, 2009, 08:59:37 PM
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on August 12, 2009, 08:57:06 PM
Not in the US either.
Am I confusing the Passport for the Greencard? We've applied for both recently, and I thought we had to do the fingerprinting for the passport now, as well as the greencard.
Well shit. I'd advocate for that for my own protection from this kind of crap.
ACLU would shit themselves. There's a 0% chance of that happening.
In the end, fingerprinting might be better than giving DNA samples. :D
Things I learned from this thread:
Valmy is a million times worse than Hitler.
Canadians are racist.
Kenya is not a great place to pretend to be Canadian.
Neil is God.
Quote from: Malthus on August 12, 2009, 11:13:57 AM
Heh, anyone thinking this is a "racial issue" should try dealing with the Canadian immigration authorities in Ukraine. :lol:
Fact is, some places in the world are more productive of various sorts of scams and system-gaming, and the authorities are *much* more likely to be jaded and unhelpful if you have the misfortune to be from there - has nothing whatsoever to do with "race", necesarily (last I checked Ukranians were "white").
Where did you hear that kind of nonsense, Malthus?
Did Neil already do this joke? I haven't read the whole thread.
Quote from: Josephus on August 12, 2009, 12:27:02 PM
The DNA tests Suaad Hagi Mohamud was forced to undergo last week proved not only that she is who she says she is, but also that she is Canadian.
I wasn't aware that Canadian-ness was genetic.
Quote from: dps on August 12, 2009, 11:55:37 PM
Quote from: Josephus on August 12, 2009, 12:27:02 PM
The DNA tests Suaad Hagi Mohamud was forced to undergo last week proved not only that she is who she says she is, but also that she is Canadian.
I wasn't aware that Canadian-ness was genetic.
MTE.
Just so you Languish types are up to speed, since I know many of you have not been able to sleep over this.
This Canadian woman is still in Kenya. The Canadian authorities are reluctant to bring her out until Kenya clears all charges against her.
That's right, clears these trumped up nonsense charges against this black tanned woman.
I mean just for this I shall not vote for Harper's Conservatives next election.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/680529 (http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/680529)
Allan Woods
in Ottawa
John Goddard
in Toronto
OTTAWA–The federal government continued its foot-dragging yesterday, leaving Suaad Hagi Mohamud to languish yet another day in the Kenyan capital of Nairobi.
Her lawyer said he wants the Toronto woman on a flight home tomorrow and Canada has asked Kenya to clear the way for that return.
But Ottawa was reluctant to book the return flight until the Kenyan court has cleared Mohamud of charges – charges since proven false and resulting from a botched Canadian investigation.
Two ministers with responsibility for the stranded Canadian – Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon and Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan – continued their silence on the matter yesterday. Calls to Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office were not returned.
But outrage over Ottawa's handling of the case continued to bubble over. Premier Dalton McGuinty issued a stern rebuke of the Harper government, saying there was "no excuse" for its inaction.
"Something is fundamentally wrong when we can't count on the Canadian government to stand up for Canadians. I'm not sure I can put it any more directly than that," said McGuinty.
"It doesn't matter where we find ourselves, we are citizens of this wonderful country and we have responsibilities and we have certain legitimate expectations.
"One of those (expectations) is when we find ourselves in distress that our government will stand up for us. That didn't happen in this particular circumstance and there's no excuse for that."
A spokesperson for Cannon maintained the government was "doing everything in its power" to facilitate as quickly as possible the return of Mohamud, 31, a single mother of a 12-year-old boy.
She is to see Kenyan immigration officials tomorrow morning, her lawyer said. In court, the Kenyans are to drop all charges against her.
Foreign Affairs confirmed last night Mohamud had been to the Canadian High Commission in Nairobi to begin the process of applying for an emergency travel document.
Mohamud, a Somali-Canadian, was branded an impostor by staff of the Canadian High Commission in Kenya because she did not resemble her passport photograph. Her lips were different from the four-year-old picture, as were her eyeglasses.
In a telephone interview from Nairobi yesterday, Mohamud gave further details of the event that started her ordeal when she tried to board a KLM flight home on May 21 after a three-week visit to Kenya.
A Kenyan KLM employee stopped her. "He told me he could make me miss my flight," she said of the KLM worker, who suggested Mohamud didn't look like her passport photo.
He seemed to be soliciting a bribe, she said, an experience Somali-born Torontonians say is commonplace for them at Jomo Kenyatta International Airport.
When she didn't pay, a Kenyan immigration official arrested her. Canadian consular officials went along, returning Mohamud to the Kenyans, who threw her in jail on charges of entering Kenya illegally on a passport not her own.
On Monday, DNA tests proved Mohamud's identity.
Yesterday at the high commission, officials continued to treat Mohamud with indifference, a friend who drove her there said.
When Mohamud asked if Canada might help her retrieve her luggage, seized when she was unable to pay her room bill while trying to prove her identity, consular officials refused, the friend said.
In Toronto, lawyer Raoul Boulakia said a friend of his has arranged to pay the bill as a donation.
The Kenyans also owe her $2,500 (U.S.) in bail money, posted after she spent eight days in June at Nairobi's Langata Women's Prison.
Mohamud said the high commission advised her yesterday to stay in the country until she collected the money from Kenya, a process that could take weeks. But Boulakia said he told her to get out of the country first and get the high commission to collect it for her later.
The case highlights the often-puzzling approach the Conservative government takes when deciding which citizens imprisoned or stranded in foreign countries are entitled to high-level help.
Trade Minister Stockwell Day, for instance, requested clemency this summer for a 24-year-old Canadian sentenced to death in Saudi Arabia, but the government abandoned a convicted killer from Alberta sitting on death row in Montana.
Last week, Ethiopian diplomats were called on the carpet after the conviction for terrorism of Canadian citizen Bashir Makhtal. But Abousfian Abdelrazik, who was never charged with a crime and was cleared by Sudan and Canada of suspected Al Qaeda links, lived a prisoner's life for six years, the last of which was spent in limbo on the grounds of the Canadian embassy in Khartoum. He needed a judge's order to bring him home.
For the few Canadians who do get Ottawa's ear, dozens of pleas go unanswered, say advocates and lawyers for citizens who get into tight situations abroad.
"What I find most disturbing is that Canadians are possibly being judged in absentia by an Orwellian jury comprised of the Canadian cabinet," said Dan McTeague, the Liberal MP for Pickering-Scarborough East who was tasked with handling cases of citizens in need of help abroad under prime minister Paul Martin.
Ottawa lawyer Yavar Hameed argued Abdelrazik's case against the government. He said the most troubling government decisions inevitably involve security questions.
"There is this kind of interpretation that we can't do something that's going to be perceived as soft on the war on terror or showing that we're not holding up our end of things," said Hameed, suggesting Ottawa has an ever-present fear of being cast as a security threat to the United States.
Toronto lawyer Lorne Waldman knows better than most how fickle the government can be. He represents Makhtal, an ethnic Somali sentenced to life in an Ethiopian prison for terrorism.
Makhtal's case got the backing not only of Cannon but Transport Minister John Baird, who took up the mantle after being approached by the large Somali community living in Baird's Ottawa West-Nepean riding. They are pushing the Ethiopian government to accept that Makhtal's only link to terror is hereditary – his grandfather founded a separatist Somali group in eastern Ethiopia.
But Waldman has also done battle with Ottawa. He took the government to Federal Court after the Tories decided Ronald Allen Smith, the death row inmate in Montana, was no longer deserving of Canada's help or official government appeals on his behalf that the death sentence be commuted, help that Canadians on death row have received for decades.
In 2007, the Conservatives cut all ties with Smith's case – he was convicted in the 1982 killing of two aboriginal men – because he had been tried and convicted in a democratic country, the United States.
It was the launch of a controversial new policy that was first announced on Nov. 1, 2007 and repeated several times with subtle changes and conditions over the next five months. But legislation, or amendments to existing laws or policies, never followed.
This March, the court ruled that no clear policy actually existed and making life or death decisions on the fly breached Smith's right as a Canadian citizen to the full protection of the federal government.
The judge ruled that while the government has every right to make foreign policy, it must give fair warning and a detailed explanation of those decisions.
The trend of picking which Canadians get access to help and which don't has put the government on a collision course with courts.
there was another article in the star about how this women now "feels rushed" and there's "no way she will feel ready to leave in a week." :D
also a piece about national/ethnic tensions between lighter skinned Somalis and darker Kenyans, suggesting there's stuff going on here which has nothing to do with Canada.
Quote from: Josephus on August 13, 2009, 06:56:44 AM
I mean just for this I shall not vote for Harper's Conservatives next election.
:lol: I don't think there was every any danger of that, Mr. NDP.
At any rate, it's funny to think that she got herself into this by refusing to pay a bribe.
You know, I'm actually looking forward to the fall of Western society. There's going to be some changes made, and the heirs to these lawyers and judges who have been using the ideal of the 'rule of law' to make themselves supreme are going to face a reckoning.
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2009, 06:51:57 PM
You're just wrong. When entering or exiting a country a valid passport isn't some magical document that gives anyone holding it entry.
If you want to enter a country it is up to YOU to prove that you are who you say you are. A passport is only some evidence of your identity. There is no reason the Kenyan government should believe someone holding a passport is the person that passport is issued to.
The one exception is a person entering their home country. There you have a legal right to enter.
What a load of bullshit. That is precisely why the Kenyans asked the Canadians for a judgment. For whom that passport should have been enough - or at least warranted further investigation. Instead they sent her to a third world prison where she could have contracted Hep C, HIV or any other kind of nasty shit. Someone should lose his or her job over this, career or not.
By the way, Canada's National Post, our national, hardly read, almost bankrupt, right wing paper of half a dozen subscribers, also agrees that this is a national travesty and that Canadian officials simply did not do enough for her, in its editorial today saying:
"Ms. Mohamud commited no crime. And she is owned an apology. More importantly, she and other Canadians are owed assurances that everything that can be done is being done to ensure her nightmare will not be repeated."
Quote from: Ideologue on August 12, 2009, 10:38:03 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 12, 2009, 11:13:57 AM
Heh, anyone thinking this is a "racial issue" should try dealing with the Canadian immigration authorities in Ukraine. :lol:
Fact is, some places in the world are more productive of various sorts of scams and system-gaming, and the authorities are *much* more likely to be jaded and unhelpful if you have the misfortune to be from there - has nothing whatsoever to do with "race", necesarily (last I checked Ukranians were "white").
Where did you hear that kind of nonsense, Malthus?
Did Neil already do this joke? I haven't read the whole thread.
Where do you think I heard it? :lol:
Quote from: Iormlund on August 13, 2009, 07:27:37 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2009, 06:51:57 PM
You're just wrong. When entering or exiting a country a valid passport isn't some magical document that gives anyone holding it entry.
If you want to enter a country it is up to YOU to prove that you are who you say you are. A passport is only some evidence of your identity. There is no reason the Kenyan government should believe someone holding a passport is the person that passport is issued to.
The one exception is a person entering their home country. There you have a legal right to enter.
What a load of bullshit. That is precisely why the Kenyans asked the Canadians for a judgment. For whom that passport should have been enough - or at least warranted further investigation. Instead they sent her to a third world prison where she could have contracted Hep C, HIV or any other kind of nasty shit. Someone should lose his or her job over this, career or not.
I agree a better investigation was warranted, but the Kenyan allegation was that this woman was not whom she said she was; it isn't unreasonable for the Canadian authorities to have provided the Kenyans with her passport, to test that notion. It is only in hindsight, knowing that this woman in fact was whom she said she was, that the notion seems outrageous.
To my mind it would have been better for the Canadian authorities to insist that the Kenyans hand her over, and then determine who she was; if she was in fact an impostor, she could be handed back to the Kenyans. But Kenyan officals may look on such insistance as a mark of colonial-era discrimination and high-handedness, like extraterritoriality; we certainly would not proceed in that manner if the Americans were detaining her, or the British.
Seems to me the Canadian authorities risk being "racist" if they trust the Kenyans, and equally risk being "racist" if they don't. Myself, I'd prefer they take the risk in the latter manner, and push to uphold the rights of Canadians however that may ruffle the feathers of foreigners.
it's amusing how the National Post, estimated annual operating losses of $15 million, is not a Toronto paper because it's in Don Mills.
Quote from: Malthus on August 13, 2009, 08:55:51 AM
To my mind it would have been better for the Canadian authorities to insist that the Kenyans hand her over, and then determine who she was;
Which is exactly what they did, Malthus.
Kenya gave the woman one week to get things "sorted" with the Canadians. The Canadians washed their hands off her and send her back to the Kenyan authorities.
I don't want to link to EVERY Canadian newspaper here...but here's this from today's Globe
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/somali-canadian-to-get-out-of-kenya/article1250006/ (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/somali-canadian-to-get-out-of-kenya/article1250006/)
he Canadian high commission in Nairobi punched a hole through the passport and returned it to Kenyan immigration officials with a letter confirming that the woman who claimed to be Suaad Hagi Mohamud was an imposter.
Instead of sending her to prison, the Kenyans released her, giving her a week to sort things out with her government. The high commission, though, had made up its mind, refusing Ms. Mohamud's entreaties to take her fingerprints and get back in touch with her family, friends and colleagues in Toronto to follow up on initial interviews done from Ontario.
Quote from: Josephus on August 13, 2009, 09:16:37 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 13, 2009, 08:55:51 AM
To my mind it would have been better for the Canadian authorities to insist that the Kenyans hand her over, and then determine who she was;
Which is exactly what they did, Malthus.
Kenya gave the woman one week to get things "sorted" with the Canadians. The Canadians washed their hands off her and send her back to the Kenyan authorities.
I don't want to link to EVERY Canadian newspaper here...but here's this from today's Globe
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/somali-canadian-to-get-out-of-kenya/article1250006/ (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/somali-canadian-to-get-out-of-kenya/article1250006/)
he Canadian high commission in Nairobi punched a hole through the passport and returned it to Kenyan immigration officials with a letter confirming that the woman who claimed to be Suaad Hagi Mohamud was an imposter.
Instead of sending her to prison, the Kenyans released her, giving her a week to sort things out with her government. The high commission, though, had made up its mind, refusing Ms. Mohamud's entreaties to take her fingerprints and get back in touch with her family, friends and colleagues in Toronto to follow up on initial interviews done from Ontario.
Is there any indication as to why they took such an extraordinary step?
Quote from: Malthus on August 13, 2009, 09:25:52 AM
Is there any indication as to why they took such an extraordinary step?
Hatred for Somalis.
When the Airborne fucked with Somalis, the whole regiment got disbanded. Clearly, since a member of the bureaucracy has fucked with some Somali scumbag, the only solution is to disband the entire federal bureaucracy. Even the provincial ones have been tainted by association. Every single public employee in Canada should lose their jobs over this.
Neil may be onto something here.
Quote from: Josephus on August 13, 2009, 12:24:59 PM
Neil may be onto something here.
Indeed. This would greatly advance my agenda.