There is a Fine Line Between Creative and Incompetent.
Again the Malcolm Watson case is back in the news this is the guy that was sentenced to fulfil his probation for a sex offence by remaining in Canada.
The judge in the case claims “This court never banished nor exiled Mr. Watson to Canada,”
Now if that is true what is the problem, the reality is it is legal semantics, especially when the defence lawyer Tom Eoannou says things like “The views of Canadian politicians should not be allowed to sway a judicially approved probation order.” being allowed to choose probation in Canada or Jail in the US is essentially banishing Watson, regardless what this rather arrogant Judge may be able to convince himself of, he hasn’t convinced anyone north of the border though.
Sorry buddy but it is our country your judiciary can approve whatever it damn well likes but we don’t have to allow Mr Watson to stay in Canada. If he is such a problem put his butt in Jail and be done with it.
By blaming the media for the fire-storm of reaction to his ruling Justice Thomas Kolbert is simply covering up his own incompetent ruling. There is a fine line between creative and incompetent.
Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryant put it very well when he said ”What is important to Ontarians is, in fact, that when somebody does a crime in the United States, you do the time in the United States.”
Watson is going to face an admissibility hearing before Canadian immigration officials, when this body tells him he is not admissible then home he goes whether Justice Thomas Kolbert likes it or not.
Whether this probation was the defence’s idea or Justice Thomas Kolbert’s this ruling will be overturned by a bureaucratic process, making him look foolish as it should.
michaelsuddard
daniellarocque
abdulalqrim
holigolitely
Bill. Your shorts are too wadded up on this one, in my view. I totally agree CA has the ultimate authority to ban the guy, and I hope you folk do.
But the more I read the judge’s ruling it seems to be permissive, not declarative. So if the perv has (or had) to right to live in CA, this was just a way to give him permission to leave the jurisdiction of the NY court and do so. It was pro-forma necessary to grant that permission from the bench. I don’t believe it was any judge’s intention to “rule” that CA had to accept him. Even if the judge in question were found to have been a liberal democrat. Joke.
btw I posted on our election and on GWB.
Cheers.
Your probably right but whether permissive, or declarative, it seems to end up with the same conclusion go spend your probation in Canada.
Aside from that, Comments like Tom Eoannou’s that “The views of Canadian politicians should not be allowed to sway a judicially approved probation order” burn my butt. Politics the law and diplomacy are bed fellows. None can kick the others out for eating cookies and not expect a complaint.
But bill, he’s a lawyer, everything he says is designed to ‘burn peoples butts’.
btw, this type of court ‘order’ is routine in US courts when a convicted person receiving probation wants to relocate to another state, regardless of whatever his new neighbors think. So I do suspect the judge here is guilty of considering y’all “just another state”. So score another one against US insensitivity.