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

[Pusser]

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.

You've been misinterpreting what I've been saying.  I have absolutely no problem annulling the citizenship of people who have gained it under false pretenses.  However, the Citizenship Act already had provisions for that long before the Conservatives amended it to include revocation for terrorist offences.  There was no need for a change of this nature.

 

[George Wallace]

You've been misinterpreting what I've been saying.  I have absolutely no problem annulling the citizenship of people who have gained it under false pretenses.  However, the Citizenship Act already had provisions for that long before the Conservatives amended it to include revocation for terrorist offences.  There was no need for a change of this nature.

Well.  At the same time, the Charter of Human Rights and our "anti-Hate" Laws protect the LGBT community, but the Liberal Government is currently in the process of passing a Bill to bring into existence a redundant Law to protect them specifically.  Looks like our Government (past and present) can not fully comprehend the Laws that already exist, so they feel compelled to create redundancies that will cover minute details.

 

[George Wallace]

Please do not put words in my mouth.

Sorry, but I too feel that the nuances are there in you argument. 

 

[Remius]

Well.  At the same time, the Charter of Human Rights and our "anti-Hate" Laws protect the LGBT community, but the Liberal Government is currently in the process of passing a Bill to bring into existence a redundant Law to protect them specifically.  Looks like our Government (past and present) can not fully comprehend the Laws that already exist, so they feel compelled to create redundancies that will cover minute details.

Lol you are correct, it's funny because that is the same argument is used to rail against bill C-51... [

To be clear though, I think they are updating the criminal code and the Canadian Human Rights Bill to include gender identy.  I believe both do not have that listed. 

 

[George Wallace]

"Sex" is already on the books, in describing types of discrimination.  Are they now going to amend the books to include "Lack of Sex" in describing gender?  >

When it comes to "citizenship" we seem to be concentrating on "terrorism" in this discussion, where I believe it is more appropriate to be focusing on "violent acts contrary to our society's Laws", or something along those lines, which would include murder, violent crime that cause injury or a threat to the public good, membership in international criminal syndicates, etc.  Terrorism is only one target to focus on, but there are many others that are just as serious a threat to our culture and society. 

 

[Pusser]

Sorry, but I too feel that the nuances are there in you argument.

Then please read them again.  I have never said that, nor have I ever believed that.  Just because I don't believe in capital punishment for parking offences doesn't mean that I don't think people who can't park between the lines shouldn't have their cars towed.

 

[Pusser]

When it comes to "citizenship" we seem to be concentrating on "terrorism" in this discussion, where I believe it is more appropriate to be focusing on "violent acts contrary to our society's Laws", or something along those lines, which would include murder, violent crime that cause injury or a threat to the public good, membership in international criminal syndicates, etc.  Terrorism is only one target to focus on, but there are many others that are just as serious a threat to our culture and society.

And such is the slippery slope to which I referred earlier.  Where would you stop?  Who decides where we stop?  What are the criteria for determining what is a threat to our society?

 

[George Wallace]

Then please read them again.  I have never said that, nor have I ever believed that.  Just because I don't believe in capital punishment for parking offences doesn't mean that I don't think people who can't park between the lines shouldn't have their cars towed.

And such is the slippery slope to which I referred earlier.  Where would you stop?  Who decides where we stop?  What are the criteria for determining what is a threat to our society?

What slippery slope?  The LAW does discriminate between what real threats are and what are trivial or minor offences.  Your constant going back to point out that such things as a parking offence being brought into a Court of Law and resulting in a person losing their citizenship are completely absurd.  You constantly allude to these trivial examples and they are absolutely absurd.  Can you not concentrate on the real facts, and not throw in absurdities?

 

[Pusser]

What slippery slope?  The LAW does discriminate between what real threats are and what are trivial or minor offences.  Your constant going back to point out that such things as a parking offence being brought into a Court of Law and resulting in a person losing their citizenship are completely absurd.  You constantly allude to these trivial examples and they are absolutely absurd.  Can you not concentrate on the real facts, and not throw in absurdities?

I throw in the absurdities to show how absurd this whole issue is.  Yes, the law does in most cases discriminate between what are real threats and what are trivialities.  However, this change opened a door for expansion without limit.  The original proposal was that it only applied to terrorism offences and that was it.  One of my original points was that this could expand to other offences, to which many replied, no, it would only apply to terrorism (heinous crime of the moment).  Yet you yourself just advocated for expanding it to cover other serious offences - THAT is the slippery slope.  Where does it stop?  Who decides? 

I think I'm done with it.  Obviously some folks are intransigent on this issue (myself included) and it's apparent that I'm not going to convince a fair number of others that this change in law was a bad idea.  It's all moot anyway as the law has actually been changed, so now we are just going around in circles.

But just to be clear:  I believe that Canadian citizenship is a precious thing and I am immensely proud to travel the world with "CANADA" on my shoulder.  My loyalty should not be in question.  I also believe that many other aspects of the Citizenship Act are too lenient and that we grant citizenship too easily in many cases, often times to some people who don't deserve it.  Nevertheless, making ineffective and unnecessary changes to a law (that already had provisions to deal with those sorts who would lie or misrepresent themselves) which really only divided Canadians, was a silly thing to do.  I am also not soft on terrorism or any other serious crime, but I also believe in the equal application of justice.  We need to apply justice to all bad people in the same way, not divide them into groups.  By the way, a fair number of constitutional scholars agree with me on this one.  I doubt that the Conservative change would ever has survived a Constitutional challenge.

 

[YZT580]

Pusser, if we still had the death penalty for treason I would concur completely. People who come to this country, become citizens and then declare war upon us should not be here. If they performed these acts in Syria or Iran against our forces you would certainly help in loading the aircraft or the planning the attack to eradicate them.  Apart from geography, what is the difference?  Execute the bastards.  Since we can't do that here in Canada, kick them out.  But don't put them in a facility where they can infect those around them with their own personal social disease. 

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

What slippery slope?  The LAW does discriminate between what real threats are and what are trivial or minor offences.  Your constant going back to point out that such things as a parking offence being brought into a Court of Law and resulting in a person losing their citizenship are completely absurd.  You constantly allude to these trivial examples and they are absolutely absurd.  Can you not concentrate on the real facts, and not throw in absurdities?

One slippery slope lies in the definition of "terrorism". In the context of this law, terrorism is clearly linked to islamic extremism. However, what if how we view terrorism changes? Say, for example, in 10 years "terrorism" or an attack on the state is extended to include attacks on the government as an attack on the nation? What of eco-terrorism? what of mass shootings? "Terrorism" is for all intents and purposes an abstract concept that changes over time (terrorism isn't new after all). While you may consider terrorism to be people blowing up a building or conducting an attack, another may consider homophobia or islamophobia an act of terrorism.

That's why the "war on terror" is inherently stupid... how can you fight an abstract concept?

 

[Jarnhamar]

I throw in the absurdities to show how absurd this whole issue is. 

Reductio ad absurdum