Brickbat: Just a Misunderstanding


Canada's Federal Court has overturned a decision by refugee adjudicator who denied a woman's request to remain in Canada. Sarwanjit Randhawa focused on the woman's decision to keep a child she said was the result of a rape. "The claimant's explanation does not make sense as to why she would keep a child who would remind her of being raped, unless that is not the case," Randhawa wrote in her decision. During the hearing, Randhawa asked the woman why she did not have an abortion. The woman said she is against the abortion, and it isn't the child's fault how it was conceived.

NEXT: California Bill Would Require Occupational Licenses for Porn Actors, Strippers, Cam Girls

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I also like the use of large by gods ! so effectively a god.

  2. I also like the use of large by gods ! so effectively a god.

  3. Randhawa knew that Canuckistan didn’t need any more pro-lifers.

  4. Bardswich is calling on the IRB to stop decision-makers from casting doubt on women because of how they act after being sexually assaulted. And if the board is unable or unwilling to do it, she says the government should step in.

    Canada has privatized its immigration process? I would have thought the Immigrant and Refugee Board would already be a government agency. What happens if a would-be refugee declines to sign up for their services and just moves into the country?

    1. It’s not privatized. It’s a Canadian federal agency.

    2. “What happens if a would-be refugee declines to sign up for their services and just moves into the country?”

      The threat of having to live in Canada is enough of a deterrent to mitigate a lot of their immigration problems.

      (Sorry aboot that Rufus)

  5. I see that the reporter consulted “[s]exual assault and gender-based violence experts,” but never asked for comment from any pro-lifers, instead focusing on the case as a violation of “freedom of choice.”

    And from this case the report segued into:

    “Gillian Hnatiw, a lawyer who specializes in sexual assault law…says the board must stop refugee judges relying upon myths and stereotypes, such as expecting sexual assault survivors to report their attacks to police, medical professionals or family members.”

    So wanting the claimant to explain why they didn’t report the rape previously is *just like* wanting the claimant to kill her child.

    1. There seems to be a tension (to put it mildly) between supporting abortions for convenience and #believingallwomen.

      If they sincerely believe that abortion is simply a “procedure” to be invoked whenever a condom slips – much less when you’re raped – then *of course* it’s confusing and suspicious to find some woman who babbles on about the child’s right to life. Obviously not credible.

      1. There is no tension

        There is just an ignorant piece of garbage pretending to be a judge.

        People who believe in choice believe in choice, as in choosing to have a baby or not.
        You have bought into the religious right’s ‘pro abortion’ narrative

        1. “No man is required by law to own a slave, not
          even in the slave States. The most vehement opponent
          of slavery, therefore, may live unmolested, and with all
          the rights of conscience unimpaired, quoad hoc,—what
          ever notions may be entertained of the institution itself.

          “No person is compelled to buy, sell, or hold in bond
          age, a single slave in any part of the country, — of
          course, if conscientiously opposed to slavery, he can
          keep aloof from it.”

          “Negro Slavery in America,” c. 1853, in The Works of Philip Lindsley, D. D., vol. III (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott and Company, 1866), p. 580

          1. Since the date was 1853, that author was either a liar, or a moral nullity who didn’t think that being forced to help catch fugitive slaves would offend an opponent of slavery.

  6. As someone who was adopted, and likes children, a sincere “go fuck yourself” to Sarwanjit Randhawa. I hope you lose your job and find a new one harvesting ice cubes in the Northwest Territories.

  7. Did not have abortion, not a True Feminist(tm), thus must leave Canada.

    Because pro-choice is about making the politically approved choices the government tells you to make.

  8. I am boss of my own will. Come to join under link to earn $75 per hour by watching tv with family in spare time. Earn as much as you spent time. If so please copy the link and full fill your dream……… Read more  

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.