|
Author
|
Topic: IRB Member Proposes Sex in Exchange for Refugee Status?
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 03 October 2006 03:35 PM
This is one of the most disgusting stories I have seen in a long time: quote:
A member of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada has been suspended after a woman accused him of trying to trade sex for a favourable ruling.The chairman of the board issued a statement yesterday citing "very serious" allegations of misconduct against former Toronto councillor and patronage appointee Steve Ellis.
Supposedly, there is a videotape of this man speaking to the claimant about sex, outside of the hearing room. If there is any basis to these allegations, he should go to prison. Not only is it grossly wrong for any vulnerable person to have to perfomr sex acts for status, it is utterly corrupting of the refugee process for nonsense of this sort to occur. Let's have a police investigation right away.globe and mail [ 03 October 2006: Message edited by: jeff house ]
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Sans Tache
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13117
|
posted 04 October 2006 11:21 AM
The woman's boyfriend taped the meeting and gave one copy to the IRB chair and one copy to CTV, which I thought was a good idea on his part to guarantee this crime would be investigated. You can read more about this story here, IRB judge offers refugee claimant visa for affair
IRB Press Release If Steve Ellis is found guilty, he should receive the maximum sentence allowable and then some more. It's too bad Canada does not have consecutive sentencing for this type of crime. Words cannot describe how sickened I feel about this incident. I can only imagine how horrified this woman must have felt.
From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 04 October 2006 01:46 PM
I don't understand the reference to consecutive sentencing, but the following section of the Criminal Code appears to be highly relevant:122. Every official who, in connection with the duties of his office, commits fraud or a breach of trust is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, whether or not the fraud or breach of trust would be an offence if it were committed in relation to a private person. If they really wanted to throw the book at him, they might also go to the sections on attempted sexual assault. I haven't looked at it carefully, but it may be that offering legal status for sex would amount to an attempted sexual assault, because the consent would be vitiated by the circumstances. I am not sure that he went so far as "making an attempt" though. Maybe it was "mere preparation short of an attempt". Anyway, I am presuming he's innocent for the time being.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Summer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12491
|
posted 04 October 2006 07:50 PM
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
I don't understand the reference to consecutive sentencing, but the following section of the Criminal Code appears to be highly relevant:122. Every official who, in connection with the duties of his office, commits fraud or a breach of trust is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, whether or not the fraud or breach of trust would be an offence if it were committed in relation to a private person.
What about this section:
212. (1) Every one who (a) procures, attempts to procure or solicits a person to have illicit sexual intercourse with another person, whether in or out of Canada, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
Or does that only apply when a person tries to convince someone to have sex with a third person?
From: Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pearson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12739
|
posted 23 October 2006 09:16 AM
Wow, this is like something out of a bad Nazi movie. Imagine this being new Canadians first impression of Canada. Yeah, this guy should definately go to jail for whatever the maximum sentence is.
From: 905 Oasis | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
otter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12062
|
posted 23 October 2006 10:42 AM
Anyone that thinks this is an isolated incident has their head up their butt. It is far too common for men with this type of personality to think that this is just another form of seduction since it has eons of history supporting it. This type of blackmail has been around since time immemorial and will continue to occur on a regular basis until all men are able to discover something more important to occupy ourselves with than their pathetic genitals and their sexual conquests. Of course, Babble has already shown its own ignorance in this regard by trashing the discussion i started that compared the attitudes that sexual conquests share in common with rape.
From: agent provocateur inc. | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938
|
posted 23 October 2006 11:08 AM
otter, absolutely this is not an isolated incident. However, "trading sex for a favourable ruling" may be considered a "conquest" from the man's point of view. So what? Men are taught a lot of fucked up things about sex and entitlement and power over women. Some men deny rape all the time. Some men compare rape to seduction and sexual conquest all the time. Just because some men say this and believe it doesn't make it even remotely true. From the woman's point of view it's uninvited, coercive sex under circumstances of an extreme power differential. Her true consent is not possible. Now, what does that sound like?
From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 23 October 2006 01:51 PM
quote:
otter, absolutely this is not an isolated incident
I am not aware of a single other case in which a Board member met a claimant outside of the courtroom. Nor have I ever heard of anyone else claiming that she was importuned by a Board Member. Since it's cause for dismissal, and probably jail, it may be quite rare.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Email this thread to someone!
