I immigrated to Canada and applied for asylum few years ago. My reasons that i submitted for the asylum were the posts i made online criticizing my original country’s actions, and that those posts will lead to my prosecution if i go back. I was accepted on those grounds.
So what the hell happened here with this woman? Was the judge or office worker working on her case a russian spy or something? This makes no sense at all. Using the reason to accept someone to throw them to sharks instead is draconian at best, pure evil at worst.
Someone needs to be fired and prosecuted over this, and this woman should be given asylum ASAP, especially that her name just became more public.
This strikes me as the clerical issue/error that will be solved in due course, but makes for great headlines. It’s just the system working as intended, but colliding with the changing situation regarding Russia. It’s easy to be angry, but that anger would be better spent pushing our various governments to mobilize industry and generate the supplies and support that Ukraine needs to be victorious. This is a book keeping error.
Edited to correct the autocorrect.
Good points :)
This is the best summary I could come up with:
A Russian anti-war activist is facing the prospect of deportation from Canada after her citizenship application was blocked on the grounds that her blogposts had broken Moscow’s harsh laws criminalizing criticism of the invasion of Ukraine.
The decision, first reported by the CBC, which has baffled immigration lawyers, faults Maria Kartasheva over criminal charges leveled by Russian prosecutors, even though her dissent mirrors Canada’s foreign policy.
Kartasheva, founder of the Russian Canadian democratic alliance, fled her homeland in 2019 amid concern over Vladimir Putin’s growing crackdown on dissent .
Justin Trudeau’s government has been deeply critical of the Russian state, sanctioning many officials – including the judge who oversaw Kartasheva’s arrest in absentia.
In December, Canadian officials told her in a letter that her conviction in Russia aligns with a criminal code offence relating to spreading false information.
Another expert, the University of Toronto law professor Audrey Macklin, said the case appeared the result of an “over-zealous” citizenship officer and questioned the decision to pull her during the ceremony.
The original article contains 830 words, the summary contains 169 words. Saved 80%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
So, Russia creates draconian anti dissent law, charges dissenters with it and because of thelat charge they cannot become Canadian. Does that mean she can apply for asylum?
It probably was an automatic system that rejected her on the grounds she is technically on the run.
Haha… that’s an excellent point. Little Britain was ahead of its time.
words look same, mean same
-The Canadian Immigration Officer probably
