"Pre-emptively barring from visiting anyone with a DUI is just stupid."

Hold your horses there, fella!

Your facile statement, quoted above, begs several questions--some directly related to the issue, some with an oblique relation--among them:

-Why is a D.U.I. just a misdemeanor?

The aforementioned behavior, the inebriated operation of a motor vehicle, probably ranks right up there among the actions one can commit that are most reckless--both in terms of possible resultant outcomes and in terms of, shall we say, ethical considerations.

If upon conviction of the first D.U.I. (or, being generous, even the second) the offender was stripped of his driving privileges, there likely would not be much of an issue: the offender could not drive in his own country; nor could he drive in any other country (at least, not legally, though I don't know if I would want to put my trust in the law abiding instincts of drunk drivers).

But that's not the way it works, is it?

The fact is that most, if not all, drunk drivers, before they cause an accident with grievous consequences, have not only driven drunk on multiple occasions, but also have received multiple citations for drunk driving.

The point that I'm trying to make here, belabored as it is, is actually quite simple: when it comes to drunk driving, D.U.I. offenders--whether or not they are in possession of a license--vis a vis the general population, pose an elevated risk of committing a crime.


-Why is it so unfathomable that a country, Western or not, would evaluate the backgrounds of those people wanting to visit within its borders?

To me, to do so would seem to be sensible.

At all events, even if were silly that a drunk driving misdemeanor conviction in your country of residence could get you barred from Canada; even if Canada were acting in a manner that could be considered "out of step" with other Western countries--as you seemed to imply ("Most Western countries don't bar people from visiting"), though you didn't, you know, cite any evidence that buttressed the point; even if all that were true, there'd still be a slight problem with your claiming that "[m]ost people (including this reporter) don't know that if you've been convicted of anything anywhere in the world that would be a felony in Canada - this includes drunk driving - you can't go to Canada."

The problem? It isn't true.

The government can prevent you from entering the country; you are not automatically banned.

"You MAY not be permitted to enter Canada if you have a criminal conviction, including a conviction for driving while impaired."

Interesting that you didn't bother to quote the rest of the Citizenship and Immigration Canada page that you linked to.

Had you bothered to add the additional text, or to click one or two other links, we all would have learned some interesting supplemental information, including the following facts:

-"If you have juvenile convictions (convictions for crimes committed while under the age of 18), you are most likely not prohibited from entering Canada."

-There is an entire FAQ section that deals with the issue of prior criminal convictions (including drunk driving), from which we learn:

~"Rehabilitation means that you lead a stable life and that you are unlikely to be involved in any further criminal activity. If you want to come to Canada, but you have committed or been convicted of a crime, you may apply for rehabilitation to enter Canada.

Requests for rehabilitation should be made at a visa office outside Canada. Such a request usually requires proof that at least five years have elapsed since the end of any sentence imposed (including any period of parole/probation), and that further criminal activity is unlikely."

~~"Depending on the nature of the offence, the time elapsed and your behaviour since it was committed or since you were sentenced, you may no longer be considered inadmissible to Canada. You may be permitted to come to Canada if

you are able to satisfy an immigration officer that you meet the legal requirement to be deemed rehabilitated; or
you have applied for rehabilitation and your application has been approved; or
you have obtained a pardon; or
you have obtained a temporary resident permit.


~~~"Deemed Rehabilitation
You may be deemed rehabilitated if you meet the requirements of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Depending on the nature of your offence, at least five years and as many as 10 years must have passed since you completed the sentence imposed for your crime. Deemed rehabilitation also depends on whether you have committed one or more offences. In all cases, you may only be deemed rehabilitated if the offence committed would be punishable in Canada by a maximum term of imprisonment of less than 10 years.

You are not required to submit an application to be deemed rehabilitated. However, before arriving at a port of entry, we strongly advise you to contact a Canadian embassy, high commission or consulate outside Canada to see if you qualify."


Anyway, your attempt to draw a parallel between Winnie Mandela's situation and that of someone convicted of a drunk driving misdemeanor doesn't even make sense, as Winnie Mandela previously has been convicted of, in the 1991 case, kidnapping and being an accessory to assault in connection with the death of Moeketsi (sentence was reduced to a fine, on appeal) and, in 2003 case, of 43 counts of fraud (her fraud conviction standing, while her theft convictionwas thrown out).

None of those crimes are misdemeanors.