Same malarkey, different topic, same call to be sure the deliberate effort to deceive and misinform is not left unchallenged:
A few of those who are reacting to the red herring, unfounded accusation that section 5(1)(c.1) (the oft called "intent" requirement), in the Citizenship Act as revised by the SCCA, are indeed not particularly well informed as to what the now current requirements are, what they mean, or how they may be applied, but have been alarmed by some rather persistent and inflammatory rhetoric regarding this requirement.
To be frank, they are the victim of what is clearly deliberate misinformation. These victims are the only reason I continue to respond to the noise about this, to help (several others are similarly quelling the dissemination of misinformation by reminders that there is no impact on citizens, just those in the process of applying for citizenship, during the process itself) keep the airways clear that there is no reason for genuine citizens who honestly acquired their citizenship to have any fear about making life choices in the future which might involve going abroad to live or work.
To be frank those deliberately promoting misinformation, the unfounded, inaccurate, hyperbolic rhetoric, are mostly of two sorts:
-- the typical trolls, trolling for a reaction, no regard for the actual substance, but feeding off the elevated attention generated by the subject (like most forums, this one has its share of these)
-- those for whom the changes make it more difficult to pursue a passport of convenience, those who in the past would be among applicants-applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport or more recently hoping at least to be among those taking-the-oath-on-the-way-to-the-airport (more than a few participants here are among this group).
As I have otherwise noted, no one is really fooling anybody about what underlies much of the frenzy of hyperbolic criticism: the changes are going to make it far more difficult to take-the-oath-on-the-way-to-the-airport, and they will all but preclude being a successful applicant who has applied-on-the-way-to-the-airport. At the least, getting there will take longer, require more effort, and probably cost more. (How dare they? one can hear those deprived of easy fraud whine.)
Their noise is just that, noise.
Unfortunately, more than a year ago the Canadian Bar Association, and some other observers, contributed to the misinformation by prematurely submitting misguided comments without actually analyzing so much as the actual language of the, at that time merely proposed, provisions. All that has long been dismissed, and those misguided comments are of no import to sincere and rational observers.
But those whose agenda it is to perpetuate the dissemination of misinformation have seized such comments and continue to leverage them into a façade of legitimacy, a pretense of reason. Feeding wildlife is rarely a good idea, and feeding the trolls is a particularly bad idea. No need to be Norwegian to grasp this.
In any event, the main point to be made contrary to the persistent effort to misinform, is that those who have legitimately acquired citizenship have no reason to fear the government taking away their citizenship, even if later in life they decide to live or work abroad.
