[BartSimpson]

A few things:

I hear a lot of high and mighty moralizing about how awful the USA is because of our death penalty for murderers and how noble Canada is because Canada won't extradite people to the USA who will face the death penalty.

But it's okay to deport this Russian fellow back to a country where he will absolutely face the death penalty for treason. What gives with that?

Something that a lot of you don't know (given the comments here) is that one thing the KGB and the CIA have in common is lots and lots of analysts and clerks and relatively few field officers. Most CIA and KGB staff are/were paper pushers and desk jockeys.

Statistically speaking, the guy is probably telling the truth that he was a 'Captain' clerk. The KGB was a paramilitary organization and they went with military ranks instead of managerial designations for departmental leaders.

Did he handle false documents in his official capacities as a clerk? So what? That was his legally authorized job in the USSR and Canada has no right to judge the man for doing his job in a country with which Canada had full diplomatic relations. If Canada had a problem with what the man did in his role at the KGB then Canada needed to address that through the proper diplomatic channels. Essentially prosecuting the man for what he did as part of his duties for a sovereign government sets a precedent. Some enterprising nation will sooner or later arrest a former member of your government and prosecute them under this legal precedent and make you choke on it by saying your own courts and laws set the precedent.

Just let the guy be. It's so much easier.

[Benn]

Here's a thought! Why in those 8 years here did he not take out Canadian citizenship? IF he had they could not deport him. As long as anyone is a PR they can be deported if they commit any crime or things from their past come to light they omitted. Once you have citizenship they can't deport you. Yes there are avenues to strip citizenship but its super hard and nearly never done. Then they could send him back, HOWEVER if, once a citizen, he renounced his Russian citizenship the Canadian government could not strip him of his Canadian citizenship as it is against the government's own policy to make someone "Stateless." Also UN Human Rights Laws I believe, which we signed on to uphold. Bet you taking that citizenship class looks good now eh!

[Benn]

Just in case I'm accused of being on the government's side I'll throw this out. The government has been known in the past to promise to approve immigration for certain people who they know things, hold or have held positions of interest in other governments and groups on the premise that they tell all and work with them for free (well for PR status).

Maybe this guy had nothing else to give them or told them he was tired of working with them so the evil men in black are calling foul and tossing him back where he came from?

Bottom line, if CSIS spoke with him and had information on him or something that is getting him deported, we are never going to know what it is, which means we don't have the full story to say if this deportation is good or bad.

[Benn]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

A few things:

Something that a lot of you don't know (given the comments here) is that one thing the KGB and the CIA have in common is lots and lots of analysts and clerks and relatively few field officers. Most CIA and KGB staff are/were paper pushers and desk jockeys.

That was his legally authorized job in the USSR and Canada has no right to judge the man for doing his job in a country with which Canada had full diplomatic relations.

Essentially prosecuting the man for what he did as part of his duties for a sovereign government sets a precedent.

- Certainly most positions in these places are not IO related but who's to say his were or not. Maybe CSIS just found out he sold them a bill of goods when he first came here and he really was an IO. Certainly grounds IMO to boot him, and CSIS is certainly not going to say what they know about him to the media.

- Um, we have to right to judge the merits of who gets and stays in our country as we see fit. So based on the support of the people who gave the government the thumbs up to rule they have the right to say they don't want to admit anyone who wears black socks if they darn well please. If people don't like that, well, there are ways to send that message.

- Sets a precedent? Um, I worked for CIC and can tell you people were denied and removed for things they did for foreign states all the time, so this is not creating a precedent.

Besides, based on what you wrote if Iran send someone from the Iranian National Guard to blow up the CN tower, and he does it then applies to immigrate, we should ignore it because we can't be seen as "prosecuting the man for what he did as part of his duties for a sovereign government" Extreme example but you can replace that with any crime and it still sounds ridiculous to say we should ignore what he did.

[BeaverFever]

martin14 martin14:

:)

Dude, you still dont get it, but ok, I didnt get for a long time either.

Dangerous ? Probably not.

Thanks for the correction on the docs.


There is always a list of rules for everything.
If its on the list of 'no no's, then its on the list.

Some days it amazes me how people can just decide for no serious reason
that 'oh, this rule is stupid', and completely ignore the rule of law.
There's a reason its there... maybe cause its an illegal activity;
just like drug dealing and murder.

You dont oppose Tran being kicked, do you ?

Same link as above:

$1:

The law does not require that former spies be deported if the minister of public safety decides otherwise; the question is why the minister agreed to this particular deportation. That's his own decision, and it is the government that chose to deport Lennikov; the courts have merely confirmed that it's legal to do so. They have not ruled on whether it's a good idea.

Section 34 (1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) makes former enemy spies "inadmissible" to Canada — but not necessarily. The next line — Section 34 (2) —empowers the minister of public safety to cancel that "inadmissibility" if the person is no threat to Canada. It says that the provisions excluding spies "do not constitute inadmissibility in respect of ... a foreign national who satisfies the Minister that their presence in Canada would not be detrimental to the national interest."

The issue, then, is why Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan thinks Lennikov is "detrimental to the national interest." In the words of Pastor Richard Hergesheimer of Vancouver's First Lutheran Church, where Lennikov is living, "Well, what's the issue here? What are we supposed to be afraid of with this man?"

2. What does the government say about why Lennikov is "detrimental to the national interest"?

Nothing. The CBC has repeatedly asked ministers, their spokesmen and the Canada Border Services Agency to explain how Lennikov is "detrimental to the national interest." None of these officials have answered the question. When it was put to him on June 2 by the CBC's Julie van Dusen, Van Loan chose not to address the question, instead quoting Section 34 (1), which says nothing about his discretionary powers.

The country the guy worked for doesn't even exist any more! USSR is gone and probably as many of his former political allies are nobodies or in Putin's jails as are in positions of authority.

$1:

Here's a thought! Why in those 8 years here did he not take out Canadian citizenship?

My understanding is that he never had PR status, it was his application for PR that set this whole deportation off and he had been here on some temporary visa.

[BartSimpson]

Hate to tell you, but yes, if a member of the Iranian military commits an act of war against Canada he should not be prosecuted for that action. There's that whole Geneva Convention thing you folks have been shoving down our throats the past few years with the guys at Gitmo.

So, yeah, a guy acting on orders from his nation blows up the CN Tower you can hold him as a POW but you could not prosecute him nor hold him accountable in the future for acts done under the color of authority.

Now don't forget, that's how Canada has insisted the USA treat terrorists imprisoned at Gitmo.

I don't dispute that Canada has a right to say who can and cannot stay, but if you won't send a murderer back to the USA because we'll execute him then deporting this fellow back to Russia where he will absolutely face a judicial or extra-judicial execution is a tad hypocritical.

That's just selective morality.

[BartSimpson]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Section 34 (1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) makes former enemy spies "inadmissible" to Canada

I'm sorry, but where Canada enjoyed uninterrupted and full diplomatic relations with the USSR then at no point was this fellow an "enemy" spy. He wasn't necessarily friendly, granted, but to call him an enemy is to acknowledge a state of hostility that never legally existed.

[Akhenaten]

$1:

Hate to tell you, but yes, if a member of the Iranian military commits an act of war against Canada he should not be prosecuted for that action. There's that whole Geneva Convention thing you folks have been shoving down our throats the past few years with the guys at Gitmo.

Nobody has said you shouldn't prosecute people who committed an act of war against you, the disagreement is in how that is conducted.

$1:

Now don't forget, that's how Canada has insisted the USA treat terrorists imprisoned at Gitmo.

Canada has insisted you don't prosecute them? No.

[ridenrain]

You make a good argument Bart.. and it's pissing me off.

[martin14]

BF, it says the Minister may intervene, but isnt obliged to.
So he chooses not to.. so what ?

So I'll throw this out:

since BO isnt obliged to produce a birth certificate,
why should this be any different ?


And I also mentioned CSIS should have given him PR status.

[Benn]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Hate to tell you, but yes, if a member of the Iranian military commits an act of war against Canada he should not be prosecuted for that action. There's that whole Geneva Convention thing you folks have been shoving down our throats the past few years with the guys at Gitmo.

So, yeah, a guy acting on orders from his nation blows up the CN Tower you can hold him as a POW but you could not prosecute him nor hold him accountable in the future for acts done under the color of authority.

Now don't forget, that's how Canada has insisted the USA treat terrorists imprisoned at Gitmo.

I don't dispute that Canada has a right to say who can and cannot stay, but if you won't send a murderer back to the USA because we'll execute him then deporting this fellow back to Russia where he will absolutely face a judicial or extra-judicial execution is a tad hypocritical.

That's just selective morality.

Well its a matter of opinion on the Iranian thing, just my opinion is the same as the governments. You might want to look at working to change the governments opinion if it irks you then.

And I'm not hypocritical, the government is then, I'd be ok with sending a murderer back to face whatever laws he broke in the US and I sleep just dandy with my morals

[BeaverFever]

martin14 martin14:

BF, it says the Minister may intervene, but isnt obliged to.
So he chooses not to.. so what ?

He should at least give an explanation why. So far the only "reason" they've given is that he has not renounced or regretted his "actions" as a KGB employee, which he clearly has.

$1:

So I'll throw this out:

since BO isnt obliged to produce a birth certificate,
why should this be any different ?

But he did anyway, in response to public demand, and that was a frivolous and ludicrous allegation, to begin with.

$1:

And I also mentioned CSIS should have given him PR status.

I don't think CSIS has that authority as they are only an intelligence service, and not immigration. The story is a little vague here, but I get the impression that the intelligence community is not causing the obstacle here.

[martin14]

1. why ?
Why should the minister be obligated to provide any explanation,
just because you don't like the decision ?


2. No, he hasnt. Many threads on that.


3. If it had been me, I wouldnt have said one word to CSIS
until the Minister himself was sitting beide me doing the paperwork.

But that's just me

[Praxius]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

A few things:

I hear a lot of high and mighty moralizing about how awful the USA is because of our death penalty for murderers and how noble Canada is because Canada won't extradite people to the USA who will face the death penalty.

But it's okay to deport this Russian fellow back to a country where he will absolutely face the death penalty for treason. What gives with that?

You're on the ball with that.... as I don't understand it either.

Our government doesn't seem to have an issue with protecting people who are from other countries (ie: US war deserters) ~ yet when it comes to our own citizens.... psh... screw em, it would seem.

$1:

Something that a lot of you don't know (given the comments here) is that one thing the KGB and the CIA have in common is lots and lots of analysts and clerks and relatively few field officers. Most CIA and KGB staff are/were paper pushers and desk jockeys.

Statistically speaking, the guy is probably telling the truth that he was a 'Captain' clerk. The KGB was a paramilitary organization and they went with military ranks instead of managerial designations for departmental leaders.

Did he handle false documents in his official capacities as a clerk? So what? That was his legally authorized job in the USSR and Canada has no right to judge the man for doing his job in a country with which Canada had full diplomatic relations. If Canada had a problem with what the man did in his role at the KGB then Canada needed to address that through the proper diplomatic channels. Essentially prosecuting the man for what he did as part of his duties for a sovereign government sets a precedent. Some enterprising nation will sooner or later arrest a former member of your government and prosecute them under this legal precedent and make you choke on it by saying your own courts and laws set the precedent.

Just let the guy be. It's so much easier.

Agreed... one other thing I'd like to add to:

"If Canada had a problem with what the man did in his role at the KGB then Canada needed to address that through the proper diplomatic channels."

And if the government had any issued with the man and his role at the KGB, they should have addressed those issues before they gave him citizenship, allowed him to live here for so long and raise a family.

[Praxius]

Oh I stand correct, he's a non-citizen.

however:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/06/ ... tuary.html

"1. The government says it is just respecting the courts and enforcing the law. Is that correct?

Not entirely. The law does not require that former spies be deported if the minister of public safety decides otherwise; the question is why the minister agreed to this particular deportation. That's his own decision, and it is the government that chose to deport Lennikov; the courts have merely confirmed that it's legal to do so. They have not ruled on whether it's a good idea.

Section 34 (1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) makes former enemy spies "inadmissible" to Canada — but not necessarily. The next line — Section 34 (2) —empowers the minister of public safety to cancel that "inadmissibility" if the person is no threat to Canada. It says that the provisions excluding spies "do not constitute inadmissibility in respect of ... a foreign national who satisfies the Minister that their presence in Canada would not be detrimental to the national interest."

and

"6. If the government can't say why Lennikov is "detrimental," why is it deporting him?

The public safety minister adopted as his reasons a ministerial briefing note by Stephen Rigby, the head of the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA). These say that Lennikov's "account of his KGB service does not provide satisfactory evidence that his presence in Canada is not detrimental to the national interest."

Rigby does not say, though, why the evidence is not satisfactory or why Lennikov is detrimental. Instead, he confirms that Lennikov has done no spying here and has a clean record, both in Canada and in Japan, where he lived after leaving Russia.

The briefing note also makes factual errors that tend to discredit Lennikov.

For example, it accuses Lennikov of "failing to express any understanding or remorse for the espionage the KGB conducted." In fact, Lennikov has denounced the KGB both publicly and in his application for residency. In a statutory declaration to the government in March 2005, for example, he said that, in the KGB, "I was exposed to the cynicism, arrogance, lack of morality and alcoholism that afflicted most officers. I was then convinced that the Soviet regime was an evil force in the world ... I was absolutely committed to finding a way to quit the KGB."

The government does not dispute that he did, in fact, quit the KGB and that he could be subject to prosecution for betraying details of his service to the Canadian authorities."

More important:

"8. Lennikov would not be separated from his wife and son if they simply went with him. Why don't they?

Not so simple. His son, Dmitri, who has grown up in Canada and is just graduating from high school, would automatically be subject to the Russian draft. Hazing rituals in the Russian army are notoriously brutal and occasionally fatal. They would certainly not be suspended for the son of a traitor — which Dmitri is under Russian law. Far from being a friend of the KGB, his father has betrayed it by revealing details to CSIS. He could be subject to prosecution in Russia, although the government describes this possibility as "speculation." While the KGB no longer exists, it is thought to have "morphed" into the new FSB. Meanwhile, the most powerful man in Russia is a former KGB officer: Prime Minister Vladimir Putin."