|
Post by Low Light Mike on Dec 6, 2007 20:36:24 GMT -8
Irregardless of whether he's a war-criminal or not, "Joe Somebody" does appear to be "Administratively-Challenged".
Let's consider his record re his ability to follow procedures:
1) Doesn't disclose military service during his immigration application
2) Doesn't disclose the war-crimes "allegations" during his BC Ferries job application process.
3) Doesn't file his BC Ferries termination grievance (or whatever it was) on time.
I suppose he's also late in filing his business GST returns and income tax returns? (assuming that he's even registered for GST, as we all know that Salt Spring is a tax-free-zone) ;D
|
|
D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on Dec 7, 2007 7:37:31 GMT -8
Irregardless of whether he's a war-criminal or not, "Joe Somebody" does appear to be "Administratively-Challenged". Let's consider his record re his ability to follow procedures: 1) Doesn't disclose military service during his immigration application 2) Doesn't disclose the war-crimes "allegations" during his BC Ferries job application process. 3) Doesn't file his BC Ferries termination grievance (or whatever it was) on time. I suppose he's also late in filing his business GST returns and income tax returns? (assuming that he's even registered for GST, as we all know that Salt Spring is a tax-free-zone) ;D SOR// Flug, I've got to blast you on the "irregardless"...this word is one of my pet peeves. Irrelevant or irrespective are correct, irregardless is not, regardless of the spell checker on proboards. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregardless//EOR Okay, I'm done ranting. Having just gone through the complete immigration progress (albeit the US version), I can tell you it is not always obvious what the immigration officers actually expect as far as records are concerned. Some things are clearly spelled out, and others are left to interpretation. I would suspect military service to be an issue the government wants disclosed, but I really don't recall the request for military records during my processing. Black and white and shades of gray. After reading the testimony of the immigration trial as reported (opposed to the official transcript record), I can't see how BC Ferries could have lost the grievance filed against them given the testimony by Budimcic yesterday. (Of course they "won" anyways, but it was on the technicality of Budimcic failing to file his grievance in a timely fashion as was pointed out on several occasions I didn't know "farmers" were charged GST. Oh, wait, isn't that if they make less than $30,000.00/yr farming... ;D
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,188
|
Post by Neil on Dec 7, 2007 10:00:50 GMT -8
Grounds for disqualification from refugee status, from the Immigration & Refugee Protection Act:
section 36: (b) having been convicted of an offence outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years; or
(c) committing an act outside Canada that is an offence in the place where it was committed and that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years.
and Section 109:
(1) The Refugee Protection Division may, on application by the Minister, vacate a decision to allow a claim for refugee protection, if it finds that the decision was obtained as a result of directly or indirectly misrepresenting or withholding material facts relating to a relevant matter.
These appear to be two of the key areas being investigated.
In the accounts of this hearing, there seems to have been little evidence presented to back up the verdict of the Croatian court. Was there actually none presented, or have the reports simply ignored it? Having been on a jury, I know that the evidence can seem very different in the courtroom compared to the truncated version we get in the press. Mr Budimcic's fate could be quite different, depending on whether the deciding factor is: (a) the legal integrity of the Croatian court decision, or, (b) his failure to report the proceedings against him, and his full military record, no matter what the validity of the court's decision. In any event, BC Ferries made the only decision they could make, at the time.
As inferred by the government lawyer, it stretches credibility that Mr Budimcic would not have known of the proceedings against him, when they supposedly began three years before his conviction in 1996.
Whatever the validity of the conviction against him in Croatia, there seems to be no doubt that he has won a lot of friends in Canada.
As for you, Mr Horn, I think you were just being mischievous with 'irregardless'. You know perfectly well that that is irredundant.
|
|
D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on Dec 7, 2007 12:16:17 GMT -8
lol...irredundant...that's a good one! Also, not noticed by the spell checker. You might be right about the mischievous Mr Horn,only he can say for sure; I just have a peculiar hate-on for that particular word. Thanks for the legal quotes, I believe criminal offenses are sufficient grounds for refusal of entry into almost any country. When you were perusing the legal statues, did you see anything with regards to my comment about the disclosing previous military action? ...In the accounts of this hearing, there seems to have been little evidence presented to back up the verdict of the Croatian court. Was there actually none presented, or have the reports simply ignored it? Having been on a jury, I know that the evidence can seem very different in the courtroom compared to the truncated version we get in the press... Exactly, one has to carefully examine the reporting of a trial before forming an opinion about the guilt/innocence of a person before a verdict is reached. That's why I qualified my comment before. Trial transcripts are really the only way to determine if the jury reached a reasonable verdict based on the facts they were presented. One also always has to remember juries don't always hear all the "facts" the public does as sometimes evidence has been ruled inadmissible for one reason or another.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Dec 7, 2007 20:18:46 GMT -8
re the "Irregardless" word:
It wasn't intentional, but I knew that it didn't really feel right. But I was lazy and didn't bother to check.
Thanks for the lesson.
And to BCinNJ: "Joe Somebody" is a mechanic on Salt Spring Island, not a farmer. Or at least that's what I think I remember reading....
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,188
|
Post by Neil on Dec 7, 2007 23:34:01 GMT -8
When you were perusing the legal statues, did you see anything with regards to my comment about the disclosing previous military action? Not military action specifically. The Act is pretty clear, though, that with holding any pertinent information simply because you weren't specifically asked about it is not okay. It does mention 'war crimes' specifically: Section 35: (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of violating human or international rights for : a) committing an act outside Canada that constitutes an offence referred to in sections 4 to 7 of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act.And what is a war crime? The Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act gives a general description: "war crime" means an act or omission committed during an armed conflict that, at the time and in the place of its commission, constitutes a war crime according to customary international law or conventional international law applicable to armed conflicts, whether or not it constitutes a contravention of the law in force at the time and in the place of its commission.Not sure I want to take it further, and start investigating the exact laws refered to; plus, we don't know exactly what Mr Budimcic was convicted of. But what if, as Mr Budimcic, his counsel, and his supporters claim, the charges were trumped up, and the conviction a travesty of justice? Although the Act is specific about 'war crimes' being grounds for deportation, there isn't an apparent mechanism for determining the validity of the conviction. Maybe that's part of what the hearing is doing. On writing about the Karlheinz Schreiber affair in this week's Globe and Mail, Jeffrey Simpson pointed out how long and involved a process it can be to deport people, what with the long appeals process. So, if Mr Budimcic fails to win his case in the current hearing, one would think he would be able to appeal. Perhaps not, if this is an indication: Sec. 64.(1) No appeal may be made to the Immigration Appeal Division by a foreign national or their sponsor or by a permanent resident if the foreign national or permanent resident has been found to be inadmissible on grounds of security, violating human or international rights, serious criminality or organized criminality.An interesting case. Nazis that we sent back to Europe over the years were convicted, or going to be tried, by courts of which no one doubted the legitimacy. Mr Budimcic is not a Nazi, and his case may not be so cut and dried, depending on the criteria used by the current inquiry to determine his status.
|
|
D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on Dec 8, 2007 19:01:26 GMT -8
(...as we all know that Salt Spring is a tax-free-zone) ;D I didn't know "farmers" were charged GST. Oh, wait, isn't that if they make less than $30,000.00/yr farming... ;D And to BCinNJ: "Joe Somebody" is a mechanic on Salt Spring Island, not a farmer. Or at least that's what I think I remember reading.... I was referring to many of the other residents and their occupation of "farming" claimed in public. A veiled, tongue-in-cheek suggestion as to why they don't pay GST for their "profession". A practice common among the islands...from my experience. ;D
|
|
D'Elete BC in NJ
Voyager
Dispensing gallons of useless information daily...
Posts: 1,671
|
Post by D'Elete BC in NJ on Dec 12, 2007 8:33:27 GMT -8
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,188
|
Post by Neil on Nov 26, 2008 9:52:14 GMT -8
Finally. This fellow gets a decision, although, judging by comments accompanying these stories, the public doesn't appear to entirely concur with the outcome.
I stand by what I said last year on this story- that BC Ferries was within their rights to fire Mr Budimcic, based on information that they had, and based on Mr Budimcic failing to tell them of unresolved issues from his home country that any employer would be entitled to know about.
Apparently he's been cleared to the satisfaction of immigration authorities. I hope it's the right decision, and I wish him well. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accused Salt Spring Island war criminal free to stay Immigration and Refugee Board rejects allegations from Croation government
Ian Austin, The Province Published: Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Josip Budimcic can stay in Canada after all.
The Saltspring Island handyman was convicted in absentia in Croatia of war crimes, but the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada has now ruled that Budimcic never took part in any criminal activity during the Croatian civil war in 1991.
"The panel found that while Mr. Budimcic was present at the scene, he was neither a perpetrator nor a conspirator, and that his mere presence did not amount to complicity," the Immigration and Refugee Board wrote in its official ruling on Budimcic's refugee status.
"He was there for only a few minutes and the situation was beyond his control.
"Therefore, there were no serious reasons to consider that Mr. Budimcic committed a war crime, a crime against humanity or a serious non-political crime."
Budimcic, now 44, was granted refugee status in 1995 on that grounds that he and his wife were in danger because of their mixed marriage.
Budimcic is an ethnic Croat, his wife is Serbian, and the two ethnicities were locked in a brutal civil war in the former Yugoslavia that claimed many lives amid allegations of lawlessness and brutality.
While the Croat authorities say Budimcic was responsible for the torture and killing of prisoners and civilians in the Osijek region, Budimcic has denied assaulting any of the prisoners.
If Budimcic was forced to return to Croatia, he would face a 15-year sentence.
During the hearing, Budimcic's lawyer, Dennis McCrea, argued that the Croatian court's findings could not be trusted and Budimcic had been tried "for propaganda purposes."
McCrea said Budimcic was simply a traffic police officer in Croatia who didn't want to fight for either side.
News of Budimcic's alleged war-crimes involvement shocked locals on Saltspring Island.
Many came to the defence of the well-liked handyman the island locals came to know as 'Joe Somebody.'
Canada found out about the case in 1998 and began deportation proceedings.
The Canada Border Services Agency has been working on the case against Budimcic for a decade.
The ruling is a setback for Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day, who filed an application in 2007 to revoke Budimcic's refugee status.
Day argued that Budimcic withheld aspects of his prior military service.
Day's application relied on evidence from four survivors who claimed Budimcic participated in physical and psychological abuse.
The board found the written statements of the four witnesses and the foreign conviction "to be deficient and unreliable."
The ruling means that the refugee status granted to Budimcic in 1995 is still in effect.
|
|