Conservative bill gives Harper power to strip Canadians of Citizenship.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by GGG

Essentailly this is how Calgary got rid of Jackie Tran.

He wasn't born here but was brought over by his mother when he was 3. He lived is whole life here but him or his mother did not fill out the paperwork to become a citizen. So he was deported based on minor charges rather than convict him on significant charges within Canada.

So he was a landed immigrant?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

This will be a very interesting debate.

Fundamental rights as a citizen vs setting limits on irresponsible usage of those rights

What on earth...

So now the basis of my citizenship is to be decided upon by a group of temporary political entities rather than a court of law?

What's wrong with a court deciding these things, why the hell should the Prime Minister be able to determine what is and isn't 'irresponsible usage' of MY citizenship?

Are we all happy with the idea of Stephane Dion, Jack Layton, Jean-Chretien, Pierre Trudeau, deciding who is and isn't a responsible Canadian citizen?

How absurd are things getting where this is actually a debate?

After World War II, for instance, Ottawa seriously contemplated deporting all Japanese-Canadians, including those born in this country, to Japan. It probably would have been a popular move.

In the real world, as the career of iconic anti-apartheid fighter Nelson Mandela demonstrates, yesterday’s terrorist can be tomorrow’s hero.

We enjoy few birthrights. One of them is to be citizens of the country in which we were born. This government is preparing to subject that right to the whim of whoever happens to control Parliament. Do we really want that?

This is, again, utterly contemptible of democracy.

[FlamesAddiction]

I think for it to be applicable, they should have to demonstrate that the accused used their dual citizenship in such a way that helped them facilitate their crimes.

Was it (i.e. dual citizenship) a tool for them to travel, hide or access certain resources? If so, then the person should be forced to renounce one of their citizenship, or one should be stripped. Having one citizenship is a right, but having Canada (or any country) recognize more than one is a privilege.

I am not sure about Khadr's situation though. I always thought of him as a child soldier who should have been a candidate for rehabilitation.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I think for it to be applicable, they should have to demonstrate that the accused used their dual citizenship in such a way that helped them facilitate their crimes.

Was it (i.e. dual citizenship) a tool for them to travel, hide or access certain resources? If so, then the person should be forced to renounce one of their citizenship, or one should be stripped. Having one citizenship is a right, but having Canada (or any country) recognize more than one is a privilege.

Seems like a sound idea, but it should be before the courts, not at the whim of the PM.

I am not sure about Khadr's situation though. I always thought of him as a child soldier who should have been a candidate for rehabilitation.

Are children easier to "de-program" than adults? (honest question)

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by darklord700

Why don't we just ban dual citizenship? If you acquire a Canadian citizenshp by ways of naturalization, you must to renounce your original one. Problem solved.

Then we can't kick anyone out.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

This will be a very interesting debate.

Fundamental rights as a citizen vs setting limits on irresponsible usage of those rights

I think this legislation has its uses. I dont like that the power rests with cabinet as opposed to a more appropriate authority, but I feel that the idea has some merit.

People shouldnt feel that they can do whatever they want and Canada has to help them because they're citizens.

Besides, how many Canadians have been charged with 'Terrorism' in the past decade? You can probably count them on one hand.

And no, Tim Horton's upping the price of a double-double by a dime does not constitute terrorism.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

What on earth...

So now the basis of my citizenship is to be decided upon by a group of temporary political entities rather than a court of law?

What's wrong with a court deciding these things, why the hell should the Prime Minister be able to determine what is and isn't 'irresponsible usage' of MY citizenship?

Are we all happy with the idea of Stephane Dion, Jack Layton, Jean-Chretien, Pierre Trudeau, deciding who is and isn't a responsible Canadian citizen?

How absurd are things getting where this is actually a debate?
This is, again, utterly contemptible of democracy.

In a way a court (not neccesarily a Canadian court) does decide things. Before you can be stripped a court needs to find you guilty of terrorism. Only after that can you be deported on the whim of Parliment.

The bolded isn't happening though, the Parliment is deciding that terrorism is an unacceptable use of Citizenship. And added it can't be accused of terrorism, or allegded terrorism but actually charged and convicted and sentanced to 5 years plus. So it is a gross exageration that this is contempt for democracy.

And the examples in the quote of deporting all of the Japanease Canadians don't apply as each individual dual citizen would have to have been convicted of terrorism first.

I agree it should be left in the hands of the courts for the final decision but we don't need all of this hyperbole around how we are giving up rights and this will lead to mass deportations.

[Doodlebug]

"In a way a court (not neccesarily a Canadian court) does decide things. Before you can be stripped a court needs to find you guilty of terrorism."

So what worldwide courts would be acceptable and what wouldnt? That would seem pretty arbituary.....I assume a US court decision would be ok....perhaps not a Syrian court decision now? What about a US military court? Seems pretty vague....

[Maritime Q-Scout]

So we can strip someone of their citizenship for being convicted of terrorism and sentenced to 60 months in jail; however if you're convicted of anything from negligent arson to aggravated sexual assault, to homicide you can end up serving a sentence greater than terrorism but your citizenship is safe?

However like GGG said, the revocation of citizenship is outside the court's power, so what you'll end up seeing is "5 years less a day". I don't think this will lead to mass deportations, but that doesn't mean we should be taking a big ole deuce on the Charter either.

Additionally, the Prime Minister IS determining what is and isn't responsible usage of citizenship. A convicted person's citizenship is at the whim of the Prime Minister, as he/she can opt to allow you to keep it or revoke it.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by GGG

In a way a court (not neccesarily a Canadian court) does decide things. Before you can be stripped a court needs to find you guilty of terrorism. Only after that can you be deported on the whim of Parliment.

The bolded isn't happening though, the Parliment is deciding that terrorism is an unacceptable use of Citizenship. And added it can't be accused of terrorism, or allegded terrorism but actually charged and convicted and sentanced to 5 years plus. So it is a gross exageration that this is contempt for democracy.

And the examples in the quote of deporting all of the Japanease Canadians don't apply as each individual dual citizen would have to have been convicted of terrorism first.

I agree it should be left in the hands of the courts for the final decision but we don't need all of this hyperbole around how we are giving up rights and this will lead to mass deportations.

So you're comfortable having your Canadian citizenship determined by a foreign court?

Count me on on that one.

What is wrong with a Canadian Court handing out punishment to a Canadian citizen for a Canadian crime?

This fervour to remove citizenship stinks of pandering to racist sentiments within Canadian society. Why do we need to strip citizenship in the first place? So we can feel comfortable when a non-citizen's rights are violated by a foreign country?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

What is wrong with a Canadian Court handing out punishment to a Canadian citizen for a Canadian crime?

Just for clarification, are you fine with a foreign court handing out punishment to a canadian for crimes commitied in that foreign land?

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Just for clarification, are you fine with a foreign court handing out punishment to a canadian for crimes commitied in that foreign land?

As long as due process is followed.

If you go to the England and steal a car, I have no issues with an English court giving you a fair trial and sentence. However, that shouldn't affect your legal status here in Canada.

However, if you went to a country where you weren't given a fair trial I would want the Canadian government to step in and intervene (without going into the Omar Khadr situation I have major issues with what went on there).

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

As long as due process is followed.

If you go to the England and steal a car, I have no issues with an English court giving you a fair trial and sentence. However, that shouldn't affect your legal status here in Canada.

However, if you went to a country where you weren't given a fair trial I would want the Canadian government to step in and intervene (without going into the Omar Khadr situation I have major issues with what went on there).

I think that is fair enough. The one caveat is if the person knew or ought to have known the repercussions of their actions. This is seperate and independent of the issue of a fair trial and due course.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

As long as due process is followed.

If you go to the England and steal a car, I have no issues with an English court giving you a fair trial and sentence. However, that shouldn't affect your legal status here in Canada.

However, if you went to a country where you weren't given a fair trial I would want the Canadian government to step in and intervene (without going into the Omar Khadr situation I have major issues with what went on there).

Agreed. If some Sheikh wants to toss you in the slammer for having a whiskey and staring at a woman's ankles someone should step in and say something.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Just for clarification, are you fine with a foreign court handing out punishment to a canadian for crimes commitied in that foreign land?

Depends on the circumstances involved.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I think that is fair enough. The one caveat is if the person knew or ought to have known the repercussions of their actions. This is seperate and independent of the issue of a fair trial and due course.

I guess I should add that the sentence would also have to fall within the fundamental justice principles of Canada.

Therefore, no capital or corporal punishment and sentences should be proportional to the crime.

So the sentence can't be death, or to be beaten/tortured. Additionally you can't serve 10 years in jail for jaywalking.

However, if you didn't realize that there was a heavy fine for speeding, well that sucks for you.


And this:

Originally Posted by Locke

Agreed. If some Sheikh wants to toss you in the slammer for having a whiskey and staring at a woman's ankles someone should step in and say something.

I couldn't think of a law that we think is ridiculous here.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Locke

Agreed. If some Sheikh wants to toss you in the slammer for having a whiskey and staring at a woman's ankles someone should step in and say something.

But maybe to make things politically expedient with some Sheik's country, after you're found guilty and have your hand chopped off, Stephen Harper also terminates your citizenship because your dad was born in Poland.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

I guess I should add that the sentence would also have to fall within the fundamental justice principles of Canada.

Therefore, no capital or corporal punishment and sentences should be proportional to the crime.

So the sentence can't be death, or to be beaten/tortured. Additionally you can't serve 10 years in jail for jaywalking.

However, if you didn't realize that there was a heavy fine for speeding, well that sucks for you.

Here is where we seperate. If the punishment is a well known punishment, ie: death penalty in Texas, then I have no issue.

If it is an off penalty, cutting you hand off for stealing a loaf of bread......well then not so much.

[Flash Walken]

The family of an Egyptian-Canadian journalist imprisoned in Cairo issued an urgent appeal for Ottawa’s help Wednesday, as they learned the man had abruptly been charged with being a member of a terrorist group.

Mohamed Fahmy was among 20 employees of satellite news broadcaster Al Jazeera who were charged with several offences in what’s believed to be the first time Egypt has referred journalists to trial for terrorism.

Fahmy was charged with using illegal equipment, broadcasting false news that endangered national security and being a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, a group Egypt’s military-led government has branded a terrorist organization, his family said.

“It’s become a very desperate situation,” Fahmy’s brother Adel told The Canadian Press.

“We are very proud Canadian citizens. We became Canadian citizens because we know that Canada is the most decent country and always protects its people. We need the Canadian government to save my brother.”

Mohamed Fahmy and his two colleagues — Australian Peter Greste and Egyptian Baher Mohamed— were taken into custody on Dec. 29 at a hotel room in Cairo where they were working after authorities raided the offices of Al Jazeera English.

Egyptian authorities characterized the arrest as part of a crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood, and depicted Al Jazeera as being biased towards former Islamist president Mohammed Morsi — who was ousted by the military in July — and his Muslim Brotherhood-led supporters.

Al Jazeera, which no longer has journalists reporting in Egypt, has denied any bias and decried the latest developments.

“The world knows these allegations against our journalists are absurd, baseless and false,” a spokesman said. “This is a challenge to free speech, to the right of journalists to report on all aspects of events, and to the right of people to know what is going on.”

A statement from Egypt’s prosecutor said the journalists accused Wednesday — eight of whom are said to be in custody — had established a media network which used two suites in a luxury hotel in Cairo as a media centre, supported with cameras, broadcasting equipment and computers.

The statement said they allegedly “manipulated pictures” to create “unreal scenes to give the impression to the outside world that there is a civil war that threatens to bring down the state” and broadcast scenes to aid “the terrorist group in achieving its goals.”

Fahmy, Al Jazeera English’s acting bureau chief in Cairo, was singled out by an official investigating the case.

The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the Egyptian-Canadian was an alleged member of the Muslim Brotherhood, led the media operation that “fabricated footage” and aired it on Al-Jazeera and CNN with the “aim of harming Egypt’s reputation.”

http://www2.macleans.ca/2014/01/29/c...-terror-group/

No citizenship for you!

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Depends on the circumstances involved.

Agreed, rules always have exceptions