That is an interesting legal issue. Worthy as the motives behind the law may be, it’s pretty amazing that a country can pass a law regulating the conduct of its citizens anywhere on earth. I recognize that many countries, including the US, have similar laws, but they are all highly questionable.
1 Like
Indeed. I say what happens in Cambodia, stays in Cambodia.
If he broke their laws and they want to throw him in jail, lash him or toss him to the lions that’s up to them.
I don’t think it’s any of Canada’s business.
I would agree for most crimes that what stays in Cambodia stays in Cambodia, but raping children is an exception. Considering how easy it is to buy off family and law enforcement in a place like Cambodia, I don’t see how justice can get done there. So if takes prosecution in Canada, so be it. I don’t think it’s particularly Orwellian to regulate child rapists.
That’s right. I reckon he’ll be begging to be extradited about now. But you can’t have it both ways.
It is Orwellian for the government of one nation to keep tabs on what its citizens are doing anywhere on earth and prosecute them for alleged crimes committed thousands of miles outside the boundary of the country.
I’m not a lawyer, so forgive me if this is a silly question.
Could something like this be classed as a crime against international law due to UN resolutions/treaties and thus make it prosecutable anywhere?
International law is the result of treaties, and the like, ratified (signed) by various nations. Any particular international law is only valid and binding on the nations that ratify the law (which means, incidentally, that most international laws don’t apply to Taiwan, because Taiwan’s usually not permitted to sign). If Thailand and Canada have both ratified an international treaty regarding treatment of suspected child molesters then the government of both nations could both be obliged to follow through on that committment when the time comes.
But I don’t know what any international laws re this subject may say. Language of a law is always critical. One can make vague generalizations and guesses, but to determine whether there really is a violation of law one must read the exact language and evaluate how it applies to the facts.
However, if there is such a law, it could compel the Thai authorities to arrest him and extradite him for trial in Canada, which they probably will do. But that still doesn’t get around the fact that he’s not accused of committing any crimes in Canada. He’s accused of crimes in Asia. So what right does the Canadian govt have to prosecute him for crimes committed outside its borders. For hundreds of years the answer was always they have no such right. It’s only in recent years govts have been trying to extend their reach beyond their borders (same for spamming and other internet crimes).
Canada claims universal jurisdiction for child abuse crimes committed by Canadians abroad.
I can’t speak for MT, but I believe he is questioning the legitimacy of such extra-territorial laws, not their existence. I think MT raises an interesting point.
Personally, I believe that Canada, the U.S. or any other state has a legitimate national interest in the enactment and enforcement of extra-territorial jurisdiction, especially as it relates to pedophilia. No country wants to be known as an exporter of pedophiles, which is a real possibility for any nation that has strict domestic laws and penalties against pedophilia, but nothing that addresses acts by its nationals committed abroad. As noted by an earlier poster, it is not unheard of in poorer countries like Cambodia for a pedophile to pay-off the police and/or the victim’s family to avoid local prosecution. Without extra-territorial jurisdiction against pedophilia, child molesters from richer nations can travel to 3rd world countries and act with virtual impunity.
Also, these creeps are afforded the benefits of Canadian or U.S. citizenship abroad through consular representation by their nation’s embassies. If they still have the benefits of their nation’s citizenship abroad, shouldn’t they be subject to its laws to some extent? At least with respect to crimes as horrific as pedophilia?
Having said that, I wouldn’t want draconian U.S. drug laws to apply in the same manner. No need for a U.S. college kid experimenting with a little space cake in Amsterdam to face prosecution upon his return. There needs to be a balance between one country’s legitimate national interest to prevent the export of criminal activity and respect for another nation’s jurisprudence. A tough issue.
I can understand some people’s points about feeling uneasy about the prospect of a governemnt being able to proscecute it’s citizens for crimes abroad. like the expample someone mentioned about how it would be rediculous to prosecute someone who did legal drugs in amsterdam.
Howabout instead, in the case of child molestation, where Canada would simply yank away the offenders citizenship. You want to go to Thailand and abuse children> Okay then, you are no longer a Canadian citizen, you are barred from ever coming back here, , and we won’t intervene in whatever punishment that the country you got caught in wishes to dole out to you.
Yeah, I got that point. The above you’ve quoted wasn’t in response to truant, it was just a random thought.
The previous post I made addressed Tru’s point (well addressed as much as possible after having beers with a few cops).
The problem with this line of thinking is that what is criminal is defined by national/local laws, sometimes with dramatically different results. Selling a pound of pot in the US could easily land a person in prison for 20 years, whereas in Amsterdam there are many “coffee shops” that sell far more than a pound a day either legally or with the implicit consent of the government (my understanding is that drugs are a kind of a gray area as far as Dutch law goes). But sleeping with a minor could also land a person in prison for 20 years, or perhaps even less. What are equally serious crimes from an American legal perspective (in light of the comparable punishments) are wholly different crimes from a Dutch legal perspective.
One would think that certain acts are universally reviled and receive comparable treatment in all courts (issues of corruption aside), however, this is simply not the case. Let’s say, for instance, that a Canadian citizen of Iranian extraction, we’ll call him Behdin, returns to his native country of Iran to get married. Behdin chooses to marry a nine year old girl. Since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, the marriageable age of girls in Iran has in fact been nine years old. This is because Islamic tradition holds the prophet Muhammad consummated his marriage with Aisha when she was nine (he actually married her when she was six). If Canadian law is similar to American law, a nine year old cannot legally consent to either marriage or intercourse. Therefore, Behdin has committed a very serious crime under Canadian law. And as discussed, Canada reserves the right to prosecute Behdin for this crime, regardless of where it was committed. So what is Canada to do with Behdin?
Let’s look at the other side of the coin. Under Iranian law, homosexual sex is a very serious crime, punishable by death. Imagine, for the sake of argument, that Iran passes a law which states that any Iranian citizen who has homosexual intercourse anywhere in the world can be prosecuted by the Iranian government, regardless of whether the act was legal in the nation in which it was committed. Let’s say that Behdin’s cousin, Behfar, gets married to his gay lover in Canada and regularly has intercourse with him. What is Iran to do with Behfar?
I personally believe that morality is univeral. How can Behdin’s actions be hideous and disgusting on ground labelled “Canadian,” whereas his act is perfectly acceptable on ground labelled “Iranian?” How could anyone justify executing Behfar for doing something on “Iranian” ground that would be celebrated on “Canadian” ground?
Do you mean ‘is not’? Or do you really mean ‘is’? If so, what morals?
I mean is. Regarding what morals, I mean the ones I believe in of course! 
Let’s say the subject of the OP was like Behdin from my hypothetical. OK so the guy is not of Iranian descent, but that doesn’t matter. Say he converts to Shi’a Islam, moves to Iran, marries and sleeps with a nine year old. Would his actions still be despicable? Yes, I think so. I believe the Iranian law is inherently unjust because it deprives young girls of a childhood and exposes them to numerous physical dangers. I believe this applies to all young girls, regardless of what color they are or what language they speak or what religion they believe in or what country they happened to have been born or live in. The wrongs inflicted on the girls are the same regardless of these factors.
My question to those of you who support the Canadian law in question: How would have responded if the indicted Canadian had done the above rather than “hire” children in Thailand? Would his actions have been acceptable to you if considered legitimate by another culture? How about Canadian/American citizens who really do marry young girls in countries where it is legal to do so? Should they be prosecuted?
1 Like
So is providing birth control pills to middle school girls moral?
I have concerns about extra-territorial jurisdiction and don’t think the concept should be universally applied to all US laws. Hence, my example of a US college kid eating some space cake in Amsterdam, something I did back in 1986. I wouldn’t want myself or others to be prosecuted in the US for a relatively harmless act that occurred in a different country where the act was legal or at least tolerated to the point where local police let you be.
However, sex with children presents a unique situation because of its heinous nature and the fact that child molesters from the US and other western nations purposefully travel to countries where lax regulations or law enforcement make it easier for them to engage in this conduct. I don’t think it’s in the best interests of either the US or Canada to be seen as an exporter of child molesters. Thus, the molesters lose out on this one.
As for your example of Behdin, if he wants to be a Canadian citizen, then he needs to abide by Canadian law. He can remove any concern over prosecution by giving up his Canadian citizenship. He has that choice. As long as he chooses to have a Canadian passport, then I have no problem telling him he cannot use Iranian law to defend himself against charges of child molestation if he has sex with a minor bride.
The same reasoning would apply to Iran and its right to enforce anti-gay sex laws. However, I believe that extra-territorial enforcement of such a law would be difficult in most western nations. Despite the religious right’s influence in US politics, I find it hard to believe that a US law enforcement agency would arrest, detain and then extradite an Iranian male citizen to Iran for having sex with another man in the US because the act violated Iranian law. Even Bush would say no to this just because it’s Iran.
A great question, Gao. Unfortunately, I think the age of consent (for marriage, of course) in Iran is actually fourteen for the girl. Just because Muhammad did it, doesn’t mean YOU can do it (e.g., have so many wives).
State recognition of overseas marriage has often fascinated me. Suppose an American marries either (a) a Thai girl in Thailand, proof of which is available only in the form of a photo; (b) a Taiwan girl in Taiwan, proof of which is available only in the form of witnesses who attest that a banquet was held,* © an Iranian girl in Iran–and in this case, let’s say that she is the American’s second wife simultaneously, or (d) a Dutch guy in Holland. Later he comes back to the U.S. with either Mrs. A, Mrs. B, Mrs. C, or Mr. D., who then sues for divorce. The American argues in each case that no marriage has occurred, despite the fact that each was recognized by the country in which the wedding allegedly took place. Therefore the alleged spouse should get no money. In which cases would he probably win?
*The law has now been changed, and marriages are no longer legal here without government registration.
I’ve often wondered about the disparity in treatment between American citizens who serve in the armed forces, governments, or lobby groups of other countries. If that country is Israel, the practice is winked at, no matter what atrocities the citizen commits there. If that country is the Taliban under Afghanistan…well, look what they did to John Walker Lindh. (Note that the Taliban was the effective government for most of Afghanistan at the time.) China is kind of on the borderline, I guess–their spies are tolerated, but crackdowns sometimes happen.
What about if some Nigerian or Arab prince, has child brides in his country. He is allowed to do that in his country, but not in say Canada where it is illegal. He goes to Canada on vacation. Can they arrest him in Cananda while on vacation ?
Should the arrest him if they are arresting Canadians for doing that in his country ?
What kind of due process would there be? Would you lose your citizenship if you were accused? Would you lose it if the country you were in convicted you? What if its legal system were questionable?
Here’s another detail which may be of interest. The age of consent (for sex) in California is 18, notwithstanding the occasional (ahem!) violation. Obviously, there is nothing perverted about sex with a 17-year-old (unless you like it perverted, or if it is my daughter, in which case I want the judge to throw the book at you).
Anyway, how are these international crackdowns to draw the line, you ask? Apparently they have already done so, and the age is sixteen for a “normal” girl (what about boys? I’m not sure) and eighteen for prostitutes. So a 17-year-old girlfriend might TECHNICALLY get you prosecuted in California, but not by Interpol, whereas a 17-year-old prostitute ought to bring down the full force of the law.
Marriage, however, is legal even in several U.S. states as young as fourteen, depending on whether a parent and/or judge gives permission. Personally I think marriage at that age would do more damage than just sex, but there you go.