“The need to protect the Canadian public is outweighed by the risk you face in your country of origin.”

So stated Michael McPhelan of the Immigration and Refugee Board upon announcing his decision to release a convicted sex offender into the general public rather than deport him to his native country of Iran.

Okay, time to evaluate this decision using some common sense. Here’s the basic background to this story.

Farid Noedost came to Canada from Iran in 1996 as a refugee and was granted permanent resident status in 2001. Between 2000 and 2002 he was convicted of crimes such as drug possession, fraud, and mischief but never received anything more than a fine. Eventually he progressed to more serious crimes.

In 2006 he was arrested after two girls, ages 15 and 16, claimed that they were sexually abused by Noedost when they were passed out from drugs and alcohol. The abuse allegations came to light when Noedost’s 16-year-old girlfriend found a videotape showing the abuse happening.

By the way, Noedost was 31 when these events occurred. That’s right. This 31 year-old man had a 16 year-old girlfriend and was sexually abusing other teenage girls at the same time.

He was sentenced to three years in prison in December 2007 for trafficking cocaine and then received a three-year suspended sentence in April 2008 for sexual assault.

After being released on parole from Stony Mountain Correctional Institution, he was taken into custody by immigration authorities and slated for mandatory deportation due to his sentence being more than two years in length.

It was during this hearing that it was revealed Noedost’s safety could be at risk if deported to his native country of Iran. So in its esteemed wisdom, the Immigration and Refugee Board decided that it would be better to put the safety of young girls here in Canada at risk rather than expose this tender young man to the harsh realities of Iran.

Is there anyone reading this who actually thinks the Immigration and Refugee Board made the right decision? Since when does it make sense to place the safety of a convicted sex offender ahead of the rights of law-abiding Canadian citizens?

Furthermore, it’s not like the Immigration and Refugee Board was unaware of the risk that Mr. Noedost poses to the general public. In his ruling, Mr. McPhelan stated, “I have concerns that you are dangerous to the public in Canada. The way you have conducted yourself in Canada is despicable. You are a danger to girls under 18.” Well stated. Now why is Mr. Noedost still here?

There’s no reason for this country to provide sanctuary for sex offenders. If Mr. Noedost really doesn’t want to go back to Iran, maybe he should have thought about that before sexually abusing teenage girls. Anyone who comes to Canada as a refugee and then proceeds to repeatedly break our laws should be sent back to whatever country they came from.

It’s time we get our priorities straight. The rights of victims should come before those of criminals. Protecting the general public from a convicted sex offender should be a higher priority than protecting sex offenders from the consequences of their actions.

Let’s send a clear message that criminals are not welcome in this country. Here’s what the Immigration and Refugee Board should have said to Mr. Noedost.

“The need to protect the Canadian public outweighs the risk you face in your country of origin. You will be placed on a direct flight to Iran tomorrow morning and are forbidden to ever return to Canada. Have a nice trip.”

As a columnist, I fully expect readers to submit letters that critique some of the ideas I put forward. This type of open debate is a positive thing in a democracy and should be encouraged to continue.

However, I must admit to being a little surprised at what appeared in last week’s edition of The Carillon. In a letter titled “Free trade can cause much harm,” Curtis Penner responded to my column from two weeks ago in which I criticized the decision of a majority of delegates at the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) convention to support cities that choose to implement protectionist trade barriers against companies based in the United States.

As I read his letter, I was struck at how little resemblance there was between the allegations made in it and what I had actually written. The discrepancy was so great that it left me wondering whether he had even read my column.

Mr. Penner accuses me of being a cheerleader for the free trade movement. He must have missed the part in which I noted that every single municipal politician who spoke on the trade policy resolution in question expressed their strong support for free trade. In fact, the entire intent of the “Support for fair trade” resolution was to put pressure on the U.S. government to eliminate discriminatory “Buy American” policies that inhibit free trade.

Thus, the debate that I reported on had nothing to do with “free trade” versus “fair trade” in the way Mr. Penner describes it. Rather, FCM delegates were debating the best method to restore free trade between Canada and the United States as quickly as possible. Although there was debate over the proper approach to take, there was no disagreement over the urgency of ensuring the removal of protectionist “Buy American” trade barriers.

In addition, many of the statements in his letter were needlessly inflammatory. Perhaps the worst example occurs right after he gives a description of a recent conflict in Peru between a group of protestors and the Peruvian military. After describing the situation, he states, “Is this incident in Peru, Mr. Zwaagstra, an example of the level of commitment elected officials have towards getting their taxpayers the best deal?”

No, it’s not. In fact, the incident in Peru that he describes has nothing to do with anything that I wrote in my column since I was only addressing trade between Canada and the United States. Erecting protectionist trade barriers between these two countries won’t do anything to assist countries like Peru but it will do a great deal of damage to industries right here in Canada.

Mr. Penner seems to be under the impression that I am unaware of or unsympathetic to the many hardships experienced by people in developing countries. Nothing could be further from the truth. As someone who served for three years on the Delegate Body of Mennonite Central Committee Canada, I am well aware of the need to proactively address the many inequities around the world. Furthermore, organizations like Ten Thousand Villages play an important role in their work to ensure artisans in developing countries receive fair compensation for their hard work. However, this was not the topic of the FCM resolution or of my column.

Rather than using a column that addresses the issue of trade barriers between Canada and the United States as an excuse to rail against a “brutal neo-colonial version of international trade,” Mr. Penner would have been well-advised to engage the actual topic and arguments that had been presented. Debates work much better when both sides are talking about the same issue.