In this particular case, Akashkumar Narendrakumar Khant admitted that he tried to buy sex from an underage girl--he admitted to committing the crime--but the judge granted leniency because a conviction would endanger his ability to become a Canadian citizen.
Yes, that is the point of the law that would make it impossible for him to become a Canadian citizen--to keep criminals like Khant out of Canada. It turns out that Canadians are not super excited to invite sex offenders into their country, and weeding them out of the immigration pool was the intent.
In a decision on June 25, Ontario Court Justice Paul Thomas O’Marra said, “...a conviction would lead to severe collateral consequences, such as jeopardizing his immigration status, delaying his citizenship, and preventing him from sponsoring his wife, which would likely result in their separation.” National Post reported that the conditional discharge includes three months of house arrest during which he can go shopping fr three hours every Sunday, attend religious services, medical appointments, and travel to and from work.
Who is Akashkumar Khant? What is the case?
Khant immigrated to Canada from Gujarat, India, in 2019 to pursue a civil engineering degree. He got married in 2023 and his wife is in Canada on a work visa. In 2023, Khant contacted a sex trade advertisement that was created by the police to catch such offenders.
During the conversation, the police officer told him several times she was 15, and in turn, he purchased the full package of sexual favors. The whole point was not just to interact with a sex worker, but a child sex worker.
The judge, in making his ruling, specifically mentioned that had Khant been a citizen, he would have imposed a harsher punishment. But because Khant was an immigrant, he was going to give him a break. Canada needs more men just like him.
This is insanity, of course, but it is also the near-universal approach taken by liberals in the Western world who believe that none of the rules of civilized society should apply to legal or illegal immigrants.
I happen to believe that a certain level of immigration is good for our country. Many of our most successful entrepreneurs and innovators moved to the United States because this is where the action is, and if you look at the statistics, immigrants are more likely to be entrepreneurs than the native-born.
New blood can be a good thing.
But there is such a thing as bad blood, too, and we have moved away from the idea that immigration is supposed to be good for our country, not the other way around. Too large an influx of immigrants is really a thing, and not all immigrants are equal. Immigration from the third world differs from immigration from a highly educated first-world country, and immigrants from certain countries integrate more successfully than others.
It's not racist to say that having your city streets flooded with women in niqabs who are forbidden to speak in public is a bad thing for Western societies, but at least in Minneapolis, it is not an uncommon sight. In many European countries, South Asian immigrants are up to nine times more likely to commit sex offenses.
Is it radical to say that importing people who are likely to commit sex crimes is a bad thing? If so, I am radical.
Yet liberals have taken the position that immigrants have more, not fewer rights than native-born citizens--even the right to commit heinous crimes without consequence. Some cities are paying illegal immigrants to help them hide from ICE, giving the lie that they support these immigrants because they contribute so much to society.
Gavin Newsom will brag about how much illegal aliens contribute to California's economy, while breezing over the fact that the public costs of taking care of illegals far outweigh the benefits.
It's societal suicide.
