By arthur Weinreb
Monday, November 13, 2006
Last month Malcolm Watson, a U.S. citizen, was sentenced by a Cheektowaga N.Y. court after pleading guilty to endangering the welfare of a child and third degree sexual abuse. Watson was sentenced to a term of probation with the condition that he resides at home which happens to be on this side of the border in St. Catharines. Watson had been living in the Ontario city for the past four years with his Canadian wife and children.
When the sentence was passed, there was a great deal of outrage in Canada. Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty railed against american sex offenders being "dumped in Canada”. Federal Minister of Public Safety, Stockwell Day, objected to american pedophiles being sent to Canada. and the general public was no more pleased about the decision than were the lawmakers.
Watson taught school in Buffalo N.Y. He was arrested after being found in his car kissing and touching one of his 15-year-old female students and all indications were that the activity taking place was consensual.
The matter surfaced in the media again last week. as a result of the protestations of Canadians, authorities in New York are now moving to have Watson's sentence changed to have him serve his period of probation in New York State. This action caused the sentencing judge, Thomas Kolbert, to speak publicly, denying that he had "banished” Watson to Canada and complaining that the media had provided misleading reports on what he had done.
Whether Judge Kolbert did in fact banish Watson to another country and whether U.S. judges have the right to banish american citizens from their country is something that should be left to the american judicial system. But Kolbert did have a point when he accused the media of unfairly reporting the case of Malcolm Watson.
There was one pertinent fact that if it was mentioned at all, was buried in the middle of news reports about the matter. Malcolm Watson is a permanent resident of Canada; not only is he living in Canada, but he has the right to live here unless and until that right is taken away. It makes sense that a condition of his probation is that he lives with his wife and children in Canada rather than walk the streets of Buffalo or Cheektowaga until his probation comes to an end. Those like McGuinty and Day who are outraged and blasting the judge would do better to examine the adequacy of our laws (which the federal Tories are doing) rather than criticizing one decision of one american judge about one offender. Like it or not, the fact that Watson is a permanent resident of Canada makes him our problem.
Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection act, a permanent resident of Canada can be found to be inadmissible if convicted of an offense outside of Canada that, if committed in Canada, would be punishable by a term of imprisonment of at least 10 years. Since the girl in this case was 15, above the general age of consent of 14 in Canada, the equivalent Canadian offense is found in section 153 of the Criminal Code. This is the offense of sexual exploitation that makes sexual activity with a person between the ages of 14 and 18 illegal if the accused stands in a position of trust. as the teacher/student relationship is a position of trust and as the maximum punishment is 10 years, Watson could be found inadmissible to Canada and ordered deported. It has only been since last year that sexual exploitation has been subject to a maximum punishment of 10 years. Prior to that, it was five years and there would have been no basis to order Watson's removal from Canada.
Immigration Canada can hardly be faulted for initially granting Watson permanent residency status. He had no prior criminal history and up until the time that he was found in his car with his student, he had been living with his family, gainfully employed and acting the way that we expect immigrants to this country to act.
Blaming american judges for their decisions may make a lot of Canadians feel better but rhetoric is not going to solve this or any other future problems. We need to worry more about the state of our laws; and raising the age of consent would be a good place to start.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement