"Proposed law would strip Canadian citizenship for acts of war"

[Kirkhill]

I am not familiar with this decision, care to share a link?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/oath-allegiance-queen-dror-1.3343188

 

[Pusser]

You can't revoke citizenship from people who would be rendered stateless, we signed that treaty. Technically, I created 3 tiers of citizenship if you want to keep using a Liberal party line to try to defend your position. The "slippery slope" rebuttal is a fallacy, the courts would never uphold someone being booted for shoplifting or jaywalking. There is a very narrow set of crimes that this would apply to, and would stand legal test.

If you can't revoke citizenship from someone who would be rendered stateless, then why should you be able to do it to someone who just happens to have a claim to citizenship elsewhere?  Normally, we would consider pawning off our problems on someone else instead of actually dealing with them a pretty unsavoury thing (think of posting a "problem" out of your unit instead of actually taking the steps to fix it).  Why wouldn't the courts uphold revoking citizenship for offences less than terrorism?  Right now, it's all about terrorism, but once a precedent is set, then there would be no stopping future Parliaments from expanding the law to include other offences.

Why not do the responsible thing and deal with our own problems.  If we accept someone as a citizen, then we have to accept the responsibility of dealing with them, should they go astray.   

I am not defending the Liberal party line.  I strongly agreed with many other aspects of the Conservative changes (e.g. more stringent testing) and I strongly disagree with allowing people to swear the oath and then immediately disavow their allegiance to Her Majesty, yet remain citizens.  However, the "slippery slope" is real. 

 

[Pusser]

It doesn't create 2 classes of citizens. It removes citizenship that should never have been granted. Anyone who becomes a Canadian citizen swears an oath that reads

"I swear (or affirm)
That I will be faithful
And bear true allegiance
To Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second
Queen of Canada
Her Heirs and Successors
And that I will faithfully observe
The laws of Canada
And fulfil my duties
As a Canadian citizen."

If it can be shown that a person became a citizen while plotting against the state,  they lied on their oath and their citizenship is invalid.  I think the bar should be pretty high but I think it should be on the table. It isn't revoking citizenship so much as it is annulling it due to false pretenses.

That's a different issue.  The Citizenship Act already had provisions to annul citizenship for people who lied during the naturalization process.  There was no need to add revocation for terrorism.

 

[George Wallace]

..............  Right now, it's all about terrorism, but once a precedent is set, then there would be no stopping future Parliaments from expanding the law to include other offences.

Why not do the responsible thing and deal with our own problems.  If we accept someone as a citizen, then we have to accept the responsibility of dealing with them, should they go astray.    ..................

......................................  However, the "slippery slope" is real.

Really stretching it here, aren't you.  In all seriousness, if you want to use this as a precedent to making draconian changes further down the road in the future, then you would have more to worry about.  It would mean that we have moved into a Dictatorship or worse, and no longer a Democracy of intelligent citizens and politicians.  I find your suggestion highly unlikely. 

Sorry, but I strongly disagree with this attitude that "Once a Canadian, always a Canadian" that this Government is preaching.  Complete BS.  There is one other solution to deporting "threats to our society" who have used falsehoods to gain citizenship; but we have in our democratic process done away with it -- the Death Penalty. 

Your solution, "deal with our own problems", does only one thing; it allows threats to our society to fester and spread through our penal system creating an even larger problem.  "Lance the boil" and deport the threat to their native country.  If they are natural born Canadians, sure, then they go into the penal system; but all others get deported.  These threats to our society are not going to be "one offs", but multiple threats and would become a burden on our penal system.

So....I do not hold your fears of this setting a precedent of changes to the Criminal Code of Canada some day down the road in the future that would have immigrants/migrants deported for petty theft; but I do hold a realistic fear that there are serious threats to our Western society and culture from people who want to spread their forms of barbarianism upon us.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Really stretching it here, aren't you.  In all seriousness, if you want to use this as a precedent to making draconian changes further down the road in the future, then you would have more to worry about.  It would mean that we have moved into a Dictatorship or worse, and no longer a Democracy of intelligent citizens and politicians.  I find your suggestion highly unlikely. 

Sorry, but I strongly disagree with this attitude that "Once a Canadian, always a Canadian" that this Government is preaching.  Complete BS.  There is one other solution to deporting "threats to our society" who have used falsehoods to gain citizenship; but we have in our democratic process done away with it -- the Death Penalty. 

Your solution, "deal with our own problems", does only one thing; it allows threats to our society to fester and spread through our penal system creating an even larger problem.  "Lance the boil" and deport the threat to their native country.  If they are natural born Canadians, sure, then they go into the penal system; but all others get deported.  These threats to our society are not going to be "one offs", but multiple threats and would become a burden on our penal system.

So....I do not hold your fears of this setting a precedent of changes to the Criminal Code of Canada some day down the road in the future that would have immigrants/migrants deported for petty theft; but I do hold a realistic fear that there are serious threats to our Western society and culture from people who want to spread their forms of barbarianism upon us.

:goodpost:

 

[PuckChaser]

Rendering someone stateless is such a small possibility, the country they came from would have had to cease to exist, it's an extremely narrow set of events that must occur. Almost as narrow as someone committing an act of war against Canada. I get it Pusser, you want convicted terrorists walking around free in Canada after our courts give them a slap on the wrist. Pardon me if I think you're crazy in that thought.

 

[Remius]

Rendering someone stateless is such a small possibility, the country they came from would have had to cease to exist, it's an extremely narrow set of events that must occur. Almost as narrow as someone committing an act of war against Canada. I get it Pusser, you want convicted terrorists walking around free in Canada after our courts give them a slap on the wrist. Pardon me if I think you're crazy in that thought.

That isn't at all what he was saying.  I think he wants a law that applies to every Canadian.  My belief is that every Canadian should be equal under the law.  This law does not meet that criteria.

 

[George Wallace]

That isn't at all what he was saying.  I think he wants a law that applies to every Canadian.  My belief is that every Canadian should be equal under the law.  This law does not meet that criteria.

I am sure the Law will apply equally to "every" Canadian.  Due process would have to be followed in presentation of evidence to the Court.  The sentence is what we are really discussing.  If a migrant/immigrant who has been found to have acquired Canadian Citizenship under false pretenses, then the sentencing and stripping of that Citizenship would be perfectly legal in my eyes. 

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

You misunderstand the concept of equality before the law.

The concept means that any two citizens found to be in the same objective circumstances, where those circumstances lead to a consequence before the law are treated exactly the same way. It does not mean that every one gets treated the same regardless of circumstances. For instance, I cannot claim government assistance because I earn enough money. Yet I am equal before that law with the less fortunate Canadian who qualifies.

A Canadian citizen by birth is NOT in the same circumstances as a Canadian who acquired Canadian citizenship after coming over into Canada and acquiring it through time and choice, made by swearing an oath to the Country, and who does not renounce his/her previous citizenship.

 

[Remius]

That does not work in the case of a Canadian born in Canada who happens to have dual citizenship.  He too can have his citizenship stripped whereas I cannot.  Ever. Regardless of what I do.  Ergo, we are not equal under the law.

A quick google search defines four dimensions of equality under the law as it applies to the Charter of Rights.

Equality before the law is equality in the administration of justice, where all individuals are subject to the same criminal laws in the same manner by law enforcement and the courts.
Equality under the law is equality in the substance of the law, where the content of the law is equal and fair to everyone so that everyone experiences the same result.
Equal benefit of the law ensures that benefits imposed by law will be proportionate.
Equal protection of the law ensure that the protections imposed by law will be proportionate so that the human dignity of every person is equally safeguarded by the law.

I would say that that law is missing a few of those.

Unless we are saying that a Canadian born here is diffrent than a Canadian born here but with dual citizenship and is different than a Canadian not born here but naturalised with another citizenship.  But I suppose a Canadian not born here who renounces his other citizenship formally is good to go then?

 

[George Wallace]

That does not work in the case of a Canadian born in Canada who happens to have dual citizenship.  He too can have his citizenship stripped whereas I cannot.  Ever. Regardless of what I do.  Ergo, we are not equal under the law.

A quick google search defines four dimensions of equality under the law as it applies to the Charter of Rights.

Equality before the law is equality in the administration of justice, where all individuals are subject to the same criminal laws in the same manner by law enforcement and the courts.
Equality under the law is equality in the substance of the law, where the content of the law is equal and fair to everyone so that everyone experiences the same result.
Equal benefit of the law ensures that benefits imposed by law will be proportionate.
Equal protection of the law ensure that the protections imposed by law will be proportionate so that the human dignity of every person is equally safeguarded by the law.

I would say that that law is missing a few of those.

Unless we are saying that a Canadian born here is diffrent than a Canadian born here but with dual citizenship and is different than a Canadian not born here but naturalised with another citizenship.  But I suppose a Canadian not born here who renounces his other citizenship formally is good to go then?

I do not see the law missing any of those. 

These two points do not mean that all sentencing for each individual will be identical:

Equal benefit of the law ensures that benefits imposed by law will be proportionate.
Equal protection of the law ensure that the protections imposed by law will be proportionate so that the human dignity of every person is equally safeguarded by the law.

If in the end, after due process of the Law (equality in the administration of justice, where all individuals are subject to the same criminal laws in the same manner by law enforcement and the courts.), a person is sentenced proportionate to the Law, which may mean that their citizenship is stripped from them; then it is just.

 

[Remius]

This essay actually goes into some detail as to why the legislation is faulty and open to challenge.

http://www.queensu.ca/lawjournal/sites/webpublish.queensu.ca.qljwww/files/files/issues/03-Macklin.pdf

Provides some come charter issues as well.

Not a bad read. 

 

[jollyjacktar]

As far as I'm concerned, I DGAF for a "Canadian" that engages in terrorist activities.  Do so, get convicted fair and square and if you're a dual, you lose your citizenship with a one way ticket to your country of origin.  Too many bleeding hearts concerned with the wrong people's rights to suit me.

 

[Remius]

As far as I'm concerned, I DGAF for a "Canadian" that engages in terrorist activities.  Do so, get convicted fair and square and if you're a dual, you lose your citizenship with a one way ticket to your country of origin.  Too many bleeding hearts concerned with the wrong people's rights to suit me.

To be honest neither do I.  But i do care how Canadian citizenship is applied to all, not just the select lucky who were born here and have only one citizenship.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

When did 75% of the population of the country become "the select lucky" because they have a single citizenship and were born Canadians?

BTW, here's an interesting little twist on Bill C-24: You can strip Canadian citizenship from dual citizens or from Canadians eligible for dual citizenship. Guess what: Under the Citizenship laws of France, that means that just about every French Canadian could be stripped of Canadian citizenship, as we (I am included) can fairly easily produce the genealogy that proves we are direct descendants of French citizens, by our ancestors at the time of the conquest. We are allowed to claim our French citizenship if we want. Remember Governor-General Jean? She had obtained her French citizenship under that French law.

 

[Remius]

When did 75% of the population of the country become "the select lucky" because they have a single citizenship and were born Canadians?

BTW, here's an interesting little twist on Bill C-24: You can strip Canadian citizenship from dual citizens or from Canadians eligible for dual citizenship. Guess what: Under the Citizenship laws of France, that means that just about every French Canadian could be stripped of Canadian citizenship, as we (I am included) can fairly easily produce the genealogy that proves we are direct descendants of French citizens, by our ancestors at the time of the conquest. We are allowed to claim our French citizenship if we want. Remember Governor-General Jean? She had obtained her French citizenship under that French law.

I just checked the French citizenship requirements and none of that is there.  And Jean got her citizenship through her husband.  Where did you get that info from?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

It was brought into the French law with the amendments to the Citizenship Act of France enacted in 2005 (or 2004, not quite sure).

The amendment provides that any person who can demonstrate that they are the ancestors of someone born in France may claim citizenship. Those type of rules are called the "law of return". I believe Italy has the same.

There are some contradiction in the official interpretation of that law, as the French Prime Minister mentioned in a speech in Quebec City in 2006 (for the 400th anniversary of the city) that all French Canadians and Acadians descendants of the colonial regime will always be "French citizens", while the Consul general in Quebec city said that the law did not apply to people here at the time of the conquest.

There is a test case making its way before the French Tribunal administratif.

As for Michaelle Jean, yes, she got it as a result of her marriage, but it was under the same law, i.e. the French Citizenship Act. That's all I was driving at, but agree I expressed myself poorly and it gave the impression that I meant she proved descent from French born ancestors.

 

[The Bread Guy]

... The amendment provides that any person who can demonstrate that they are the ancestors of someone born in France may claim citizenship. Those type of rules are called the "law of return". I believe Italy has the same ...

For Italy, the only "ancestors" they count for potential citizenship is parents - and only if the parents register the birth of their child with Italian authorities (usually municipal) within a certain timeframe after birth.

 

[Remius]

It was brought into the French law with the amendments to the Citizenship Act of France enacted in 2005 (or 2004, not quite sure).

The amendment provides that any person who can demonstrate that they are the ancestors of someone born in France may claim citizenship. Those type of rules are called the "law of return". I believe Italy has the same.

There are some contradiction in the official interpretation of that law, as the French Prime Minister mentioned in a speech in Quebec City in 2006 (for the 400th anniversary of the city) that all French Canadians and Acadians descendants of the colonial regime will always be "French citizens", while the Consul general in Quebec city said that the law did not apply to people here at the time of the conquest.

There is a test case making its way before the French Tribunal administratif.

As for Michaelle Jean, yes, she got it as a result of her marriage, but it was under the same law, i.e. the French Citizenship Act. That's all I was driving at, but agree I expressed myself poorly and it gave the impression that I meant she proved descent from French born ancestors.

Right now aside from naturalisation there are only four methods.

Marriage
Parents (only one and must be obtained before the age of 18)
Birth and,
Military service

There was a case of a Quebec resident trying to use the old pre conquest stuff but was shot down in 2010.

See here: https://www.causes.com/causes/81087/updates/415953

 

[Pusser]

Rendering someone stateless is such a small possibility, the country they came from would have had to cease to exist, it's an extremely narrow set of events that must occur. Almost as narrow as someone committing an act of war against Canada. I get it Pusser, you want convicted terrorists walking around free in Canada after our courts give them a slap on the wrist. Pardon me if I think you're crazy in that thought.

Please do not put words in my mouth.  I have never said any such thing!  Furthermore, I don't think it is appropriate to insult the integrity of someone who has served this country with loyalty and dedication for over 30 years because he happens to disagree with a bad law.

All criminals and enemies of the state should be punished to the fullest extent. I am fully supportive of stronger measure to deal with terrorists.  I just don't think that revoking the citizenship of  people whom have been properly naturalized is the best way of doing this because it paints with too broad a brush.  I do not disagree with the sentiment of dealing harshly with terrorists.  I just disagree with this method.

A free and just society cannot remain free and just if it does not treat all of its citizens equally.  Many people seem to be OK with the Conservative change (which actually has been reversed), because after all, we're dealing with terrorists and terrorists are bad people.  I simply cannot agree with a philosophy that differentiates between different types of bad people.  Drug dealers are bad people too (and proportionately have done much more damage to this country than any terrorist).  Would the folks who are happy to have two classes of citizens be happy to have the police regularly search their houses to prove that they are not drug dealers?  After all, if you're not a drug dealer, what have you got to worry about?  It's the same idea.