Politics in 2017

[jollyjacktar]

At the end of the day saying "Sorry for interviewing you while sleep deprived and sharing that information with our allies" and then state, we will consider charges under the ATA if you pursue the matter.

That would take balls, of which they possess none it seems.

 

[Loachman]

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/graeme-gordon-liberals-let-terrorists-keep-their-citizenship-yet-revoke-citizenship-for-lesser-offences/wcm/20b91bd2-4978-41d8-ae0d-ced39b2f9a86

Graeme Gordon: Liberals let terrorists keep their citizenship, yet revoke citizenship for lesser offences

The Liberals are revoking citizenships obtained under false pretences. But revocation in these cases may have less to do with the fact of the lie, than the nature of the act the lie tried to conceal.

July 17, 2017 8:42 AM EDT

Last Updated July 17, 2017 8:48 AM EDT

Although the Liberals’ shocking payout to Omar Khadr has eclipsed all other stories this month, the government’s recent passage of Bill C-6 is actually far more consequential. Unlike the Khadr settlement - which provides a generous monetary payment to a single Canadian in unique circumstances - Bill C-6 will reward any number of convicted terrorists with something invaluable: the right to retain their Canadian citizenship.

Specifically, Bill C-6 repeals parts of the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, which was brought in under Harper’s Conservatives in 2014, and which allowed the government to revoke the citizenship of dual-national Canadians if they were convicted of acts of terrorism or treason. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had promised to repeal this legislation during the election campaign, famously asserting that “A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.”

Yet, the Liberals clearly don’t stand by this statement in all circumstances. While the government can now no longer strip the citizenship of individuals who want to randomly slaughter innocent civilians (and has even retroactively restored the citizenship of the Toronto 18 ringleader), it remains empowered under the Citizenship Act to revoke the citizenship of individuals who have become citizens through fraud or misrepresentation. According to a February 2017 article in this paper, the government has moved to revoke the citizenship of an average of 17 people per month on these grounds, whereas the Harper government revoked the citizenship of a total of 65 individuals between 2007 and 2014.

Trudeau famously said that 'A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.' Yet, they clearly don't stand by this statement in all circumstances

Trudeau has justified revocation for fraud or misrepresentation on the grounds that citizenship was obtained under false pretences. “When people have lied on their applications,” he said, “those applications get rescinded, even years later.” And certainly, there are cases where revocation on this basis may be justified. But as the government’s own actions suggest, revocation in these cases may have less to do with the fact of the lie, than the nature of the act that the lie tried to conceal.

For example, Canadian authorities are currently fighting to revoke the citizenship of Jorge Vinicio Sosa Orantes, a man who is believed to have played a horrific role in the 1982 Guatemalan military’s massacre of its citizens (Orantes is said to have used a sledgehammer, gun and grenade against fellow Guatemalans). Canada’s immigration authorities are seeking to revoke Orantes’ citizenship on the grounds that he concealed this pertinent information about his past in his citizenship application.

But evidently, it is the underlying crime that Orantes is believed to have committed that the authorities take serious issue with - more than the mere fact that he concealed it. Otherwise, the authorities would take a consistently harsh approach to all acts of immigrant fraud or misrepresentation - which we know the government does not do. For evidence of this, one need look no further than the case of former Minister of Democratic Institutions Maryam Monsef, who was born in Iran - and not Afghanistan - as her parent had claimed in Monsef’s immigration papers. In late 2016, Monsef confirmed that immigration authorities were not taking steps to revoke her citizenship.

If the government is going to not revoke the citizenship of individuals whose fraud or misrepresentation is relatively trivial, it should be required to be consistent about it. Currently, it’s not clear that it is. A young woman of Egyptian origins, for instance, is reportedly facing revocation years after becoming a Canadian because her parents provided false (but relatively trivial) information on her application when she was a child. Her circumstances sound an awful lot like Monsef’s.

And if the government is willing to revoke the citizenship of very bad men or women—such as Orantes—it is nonsensical that the government would not also be willing to revoke the citizenship of individuals who are found guilty of terrorism or treason. These are society’s worst crimes.

If the government is going to revoke citizenship for trivial fraud or misrepresentation, it should be consistent about it

Consider the case of the June 21 attack by Canadian citizen and Tunisian native Amor Ftouhi on Lt. Jeff Neville at the Bishop International Airport in Flint, Mich. Ftouhi snuck up behind Neville, stabbed him in the neck with a 12-inch knife while yelling “Allahu akbar!,” and was only prevented from killing him thanks to the heroic intervention of a maintenance worker. It’s impossible to justify a man like Ftouhi being allowed to remain in the country, while a woman whose parents committed minor fraud is removed.

Or at least it’s impossible to justify if you do not entertain bleeding heart notions about terrorists. Following the Boston Bombing attack in 2013, Trudeau tried to justify the attackers’ actions in an interview with CBC’s Peter Mansbridge, noting, “But there’s no question that this happened because there is someone who feels completely excluded, completely at war with innocence, at war with a society, and our approach has to be … where do those tensions come from?” It later turned out that the Tsarnaev brothers were young, middle-class men with bright futures ahead of them.

Canadians should ask why the Liberals are willing to treat a terrorist’s citizenship as sacrosanct, yet also willing to strip individuals of their citizenship for a range of infractions, both serious and trivial. This double standard cannot be logically explained. Dual nationals who commit society’s worst offences should not be permitted to remain Canadian.

 

[McG]

My read of the SCC decision was they were duty bound to request extradition ...

Did you mean to say we were not duty bound to request repatriation?

My understanding is that we ran afoul only, as you covered, ...

... for interviewing [him] while sleep deprived and sharing that information with our allies ...

 

[Loachman]

There is a thread for Khadr stuff. This thread should be for more general discussion.

 

[jmt18325]

The government should have fought it out in court,

They did just that, more than once.  They lost each time.

 

[jmt18325]

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/graeme-gordon-liberals-let-terrorists-keep-their-citizenship-yet-revoke-citizenship-for-lesser-offences/wcm/20b91bd2-4978-41d8-ae0d-ced39b2f9a86

Graeme Gordon: Liberals let terrorists keep their citizenship, yet revoke citizenship for lesser offences

The flaw in this logic - if they obtained citizenship under false pretenses, they were never actually legal citizens.

 

[jollyjacktar]

There is a thread for Khadr stuff. This thread should be for more general discussion.

 

[Loachman]

The flaw in this logic - if they obtained citizenship under false pretenses, they were never actually legal citizens.

If they were inclined towards terrorism, or had no intent to abide by our laws, then they did indeed obtain citizenship under false pretences.

They either falsely swore their oath of allegiance or broke it.

 

[Kirkhill]

If they were inclined towards terrorism, or had no intent to abide by our laws, then they did indeed obtain citizenship under false pretences.

They either falsely swore their oath of allegiance or broke it.

Oaths ain't what they used to be....

TORONTO — A Toronto man has recanted what he calls the "royalty part" of the mandatory Oath of Allegiance to the Queen after becoming a Canadian citizen this morning.

Dror Bar-Natan, a 49-year-old math professor from Israel, was one of three permanent residents who challenged the constitutionality of making citizenship conditional on the pledge to the Queen, her heirs and successors.

In upholding the requirement, Ontario's top court said the Queen remains Canada's head of state and the oath was a "symbolic commitment to be governed as a democratic constitutional monarchy unless and until democratically changed."

The court also found that all citizens have the right to espouse anti-monarchist views and new Canadians could publicly disavow what they consider to be the message conveyed by the oath.

At a citizenship ceremony in east Toronto, Bar-Natan first swore the oath along with some 80 others, then informed the citizenship judge of his intent to disavow the portion of the oath pledging allegiance to the Queen.

He formally recanted the oath following the ceremony and handed the judge a letter explaining his decision.

Bar-Natan has called the oath "repulsive" and says he hopes his actions pave the way for others who share his view to do the same.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/11/30/dror-bar-natan-queen_n_8682786.html

I remember wondering at the time what the ruling did for the crime of perjury - given that oaths are apparently only symbolic.


But that's the modern world.  Or should I say the post-modern world.

 

[GAP]

hmmmm.....uh, why do we need people like this?

 

[Halifax Tar]

Oaths ain't what they used to be....

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/11/30/dror-bar-natan-queen_n_8682786.html

I remember wondering at the time what the ruling did for the crime of perjury - given that oaths are apparently only symbolic.


But that's the modern world.  Or should I say the post-modern world.

Shouldn't that void his citizenship ?

 

[jmt18325]

Shouldn't that void his citizenship ?

You would think, but, the courts say no...

 

[jollyjacktar]

Oaths ain't what they used to be....

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/11/30/dror-bar-natan-queen_n_8682786.html

I remember wondering at the time what the ruling did for the crime of perjury - given that oaths are apparently only symbolic.


But that's the modern world.  Or should I say the post-modern world.

As I cannot, in all good conscience, swear on a bible to give testimony in court I have always optioned to affirm that the evidence I am about to provide etc etc etc.  It's just as legally binding on me as it would be if I swore on a bible and I would have paid the same price if I had committed perjury.

 

[gryphonv]

As I cannot, in all good conscience, swear on a bible to give testimony in court I have always optioned to affirm that the evidence I am about to provide etc etc etc.  It's just as legally binding on me as it would be if I swore on a bible and I would have paid the same price if I had committed perjury.

One thing is for sure, although there wasn't much public outcry when the Israeli challenged the vow after he took it. I'm sure if it was another person from a different religion, there would of been a lot more public outcry.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Times have changed and maybe it's time for the citizenship oath to have options to meet with these new times.  You want people to swear allegiance to the state and mean it.  Perhaps they need to have an alternative that will satisfy the purpose an oath is desired to meet while at the same time being worth the words sworn to to begin with, just like in court. 

 

[ModlrMike]

Here is where people mistake the difference between the Queen (Elizabeth Windsor if you will), with the Queen (the embodiment of the Crown representing all of us). When we swear allegiance to the Queen in the context of the citizenship oath, we're really talking about swearing allegiance to the Nation, and to each other as represented by the Crown.

However, the bigger question is why would you come from somewhere else, and at the moment you become Canadian, make an issue of the oath? To my mind, if you don't want to swear to the oath as currently written, then that's your choice. Just as it's our choice to deny you citizenship.

 

[Jarnhamar]

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/07/24/liberals-new-citizenship-test-scraps-barbaric-practices-warni_a_23045221/

OTTAWA — Respecting treaties with Indigenous Peoples, paying taxes and filling out the census are listed as mandatory obligations of Canadian citizenship in a draft version of a new study guide for the citizenship exam.

The working copy obtained by The Canadian Press suggests the federal government has completely overhauled the book used by prospective Canadians to prepare for the test.

The current "Discover Canada" guide dates back to 2011 when the previous Conservative government did its own overhaul designed to provide more information on Canadian values and history.

Some of the Conservatives' insertions attracted controversy, including increased detail about the War of 1812 and a warning that certain "barbaric cultural practices," such as honour killings and female genital mutilation, are crimes in Canada.

I'm glad we removed speaking about honour killings, FGM and crimes. That's just racist. We're highlighting the real important stuff; taxes, census and archaic and broken indigenous treaties.

All I need is a law punishing the critisim of Islam and I'll be happier than our prime minister in front of a camera.

 

[Kirkhill]

Times have changed and maybe it's time for the citizenship oath to have options to meet with these new times.  You want people to swear allegiance to the state and mean it.  Perhaps they need to have an alternative that will satisfy the purpose an oath is desired to meet while at the same time being worth the words sworn to to begin with, just like in court.

Sorry Jack.

One oath.  For everybody. And mean it.

Not 32,000,000 individual statements describing 32,000,000 separate agreements with the Crown. 

And an oath is an oath is an oath. 

It is a promise made on the most precious thing you can think of..... that used to be, for some people, their soul and the promise of meeting their ancestors in the after life.  That doesn't seem to work for some folks these days.  I have no idea what those folks value.

And then there is the crowd that get special dispensation to lie to infidels.

As I said.  Oaths ain't what they used to was.

they tell the lies I am wanted to,
  They are used to the lies I tell;
And we do not need interpreters
  When we go to buy or sell.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Sorry Jack.

One oath.  For everybody. And mean it.

Not 32,000,000 individual statements describing 32,000,000 separate agreements with the Crown. 

And an oath is an oath is an oath. 

It is a promise made on the most precious thing you can think of..... that used to be, for some people, their soul and the promise of meeting their ancestors in the after life.  That doesn't seem to work for some folks these days.  I have no idea what those folks value.

The thing is Chris, I'm an actual infidel.  I don't hold the beliefs of my having a soul or meeting my ancestors when I shuffle of this mortal coil, to borrow from the Bard.  My swearing to God, would be false and therefore not ethical.  Just because I don't share the belief in a higher power as other Canadians who do doesn't make me unethical or untrustworthy.  You just need to have me make my oath in another manner that is as binding and trusted.  The end result is still the same and honestly that is the desired goal, is it not? 

I would be happier about someone swearing an oath in a manner that holds the same weight to them as an oath would mean to you.  I want your word as your bond, not just empty words that have no meaning to you as a measure of your integrity. 

Just as torture is not actually effective in learning intelligence from your subject.  He's going to say anything to get the bad man to stop, even if it's total bullshit.  The man may think he's ahead of the game and might even really enjoy playing the game with his new friend, but is it of value? 

So OK, you're not keen on a citizen not making this oath.  What to do then for those Republicans out there or other non-Monarchists?  Tell them to swear or the deal is off?  If they recant like this Israeli,  instantly take the citizenship back?  If the Government doesn't have the balls to strip it from terrorists,  that won't happen for oath breakers, you can bet.  At the very least, I could see no end of litigation against said Crown.  At $10.5M terrorist hush money type of bonanza will be a common event, I'd wager.

As much as an oath option rots you, as K money burns my ass.  Maybe we both need to get with the times as with all the snowflakes and SJWs out there, the times, they are a changing.

 

[a_majoor]

This goes to the much deeper issue of culture and national values. The firestorm President Trump ignited with his speech defending Western values in Poland is another example, much of the commentariat expressed horror that the President was singling out Western values as being the source of our strength and cultural, military and economic power.

This is also discussed quite extensively by Samuel Huntington in "The Clash of Civilizations" and "Who are we?".

If we as a culture or a nation can't even agree on what "seals the deal" in an oath, then how will we be able to navigate more complex and subtle issues. Even contracts and contract law could become broken (one of Huntington's points is that "Civilizations" often have totally different understandings and definitions of concepts like Rule of Law, Human Rights and so on). Without a unifying "culture", Canada could become effectively ungovernable or essentially split into separate polities under a single geographic location.