Nima Soroush Nia – The arrival of Pejman Jamshidi, an Iranian actor wanted in Iran on rape charges, raises important questions about Canada’s moral obligations and legal limitations in dealing with international criminals. This article, which follows previous reports on money laundering and law-enforcement evasion, paints a bigger picture: Canada is becoming a “safe haven” for people seeking to evade accountability due to legal loopholes.
Legal Limitation: Canadian Criminal Code
Under Canadian criminal law, Canadian courts generally do not have jurisdiction over crimes committed outside of Canada, except in very specific cases, such as crimes against humanity or terrorism. A crime like rape, no matter how serious, is not covered by this law. This is a key legal loophole that individuals can deliberately exploit.
Lack of extradition treaty: A protective wall
The absence of any extradition agreement between Iran and Canada means that even if an Iranian court convicts Jamshidi in absentia, Canada has no legal obligation to return him to Iran. This situation completely ties the hands of Canadian authorities.
Deliberate entry with knowledge of the law
There is strong evidence that Jamshidi and his lawyers were aware of these legal conditions. The choice of Canada as a destination was not accidental; rather, it was a calculated decision to exploit these legal loopholes. This act is an example of “abuse of hospitality” of a country.
A pattern of abuse of the system
This case completes another link in a chain:
Article 1: It showed how some of the regulatory loopholes in the Canadian financial system are being exploited for money laundering.
Article 2: It warned how the interests of the opposition regime may bypass the Canadian system through various networks.
The lack of diplomatic relations between Iran and Canada is the final link in this cycle, which, under pressure from the opposition regime, prevents any improvement in relations and the formation of a relationship based on law and mutual respect, thus paving the way for more organizational coordination between criminal gangs and the opposition abroad.
Now, in the Jamshidi case, it is quite clear that this abuse is not limited to the financial sphere, but also includes evasion of criminal justice. It was previously mentioned about people with numerous legal cases, such as Kamran Malekpour, that although numerous legal cases have not resulted in a definitive conviction for this person, he is trying to cover up numerous complaints through his media presence and political extremism.
The Iranian government’s responsibility for the escape of criminals
While this analysis has focused on Canada’s legal loopholes, a fundamental and legitimate question is being asked by Canadian citizens: How and why did the Iranian government allow someone with such serious charges to leave the country legally? This question is also true for many economic criminals and other defendants who have already made their way to Canada.
It is logical for opponents to ask why the Canadian government should take responsibility for compensating for the shortcomings and incompetence of the Iranian judicial-security system. Simply put, the first and most direct obstacle to the escape of criminals should be at Iran’s own borders. If Iran’s supervisory and judicial systems were efficient, such individuals would never have had the opportunity to leave and seek asylum in another country.
As Canadian citizens, we can and should call on our government to take preventive measures by reforming our immigration and judicial laws so that Canada does not inadvertently become a “safe haven” for criminals from other countries, including Iran. But this request is not about accepting responsibility for the inaction of others, but about protecting the integrity of our own justice and security systems.
So, while criticism of Canada’s legal loopholes is justified, the Iranian government’s primary responsibility to contain criminals on its soil and to operate an effective justice system cannot and should not be ignored. Public pressure and international diplomacy must be directed at both sides of this equation: both to encourage Canada to reform its laws and to compel Iran to live up to its basic sovereign responsibilities.
Implications and warnings
Damage to Canada’s reputation: Becoming a safe haven for international criminals tarnishes Canada’s global reputation as a country with the rule of law.
Violation of victims’ rights: These laws block victims’ access to justice.
Undermining community security: This approach could indirectly attract individuals with criminal histories to Canada.
Suggested solutions
Review the laws: The Canadian Parliament should consider amending the laws to expand its jurisdiction to include more serious crimes (such as rape).
Ethical-administrative action: Although extradition is not legal, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship can review the residency status of such individuals, citing “public interest” or “lack of moral turpitude”.
International pressure: Canada should do more to establish diplomatic relations and conclude bilateral extradition treaties with other countries to close the safe havens for criminals.
Conclusion
The Pejman Jamshidi case is not just a scandal; it is a wake-up call. This case clearly shows how an individual can evade justice by playing with the rules. Canadian society and its legislators must respond quickly to prevent further abuse of the country’s laws based on trust and fairness. Silence in the face of such abuses is tantamount to tacit encouragement.
Disclaimer:
This article is based on public data and questions raised in the community. Hodhod Canada is committed to maintaining impartiality. Individuals named in this article may submit responses or clarifications via email to editor@hodhod.ca. Hodhod is committed to publishing responses received.