C-24 revocation rules put into effect today

[alphazip]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/law-that-allows-revocation-of-canadian-citizenship-goes-into-effect/article24699575/

 

[era1521]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/law-that-allows-revocation-of-canadian-citizenship-goes-into-effect/article24699575/

Like I said on a different thread; if convicted of any of terrorism or treason or espionage, canadian citizenship is the last to worry about.

 

[prashr]

Like I said on a different thread; if convicted of any of terrorism or treason or espionage, canadian citizenship is the last to worry about.

I agree that unless you've committed a grave offence like terrorism, you really don't need to be worried about it. However - would this rule still apply if you were convicted by a foreign government of those charges, which I understand could be justified or not, depending on where you stand on the issue? For instance - the case of Mohamed Fahmy, which is referenced in the linked article.

Also - of the government were to revoke the citizenship of a person who wasn't a dual citizen, wouldn't that person become stateless? Consequently - who would be responsible for his/her sentencing and incarceration? Also - where would that person be deported to - if that was an option?

I could be and probably am wrong in my thinking, but these are the questions that came to mind.

 

[CanadianCountry]

The law is biased towards dual citizens only. People having only Canadian citizenship will not be rendered stateless.

Its a stupid law to tackle a genuine problem imho.

I agree that unless you've committed a grave offence like terrorism, you really don't need to be worried about it. However - would this rule still apply if you were convicted by a foreign government of those charges, which I understand could be justified or not, depending on where you stand on the issue? For instance - the case of Mohamed Fahmy, which is referenced in the linked article.

Also - of the government were to revoke the citizenship of a person who wasn't a dual citizen, wouldn't that person become stateless? Consequently - who would be responsible for his/her sentencing and incarceration? Also - where would that person be deported to - if that was an option?

I could be and probably am wrong in my thinking, but these are the questions that came to mind.

 

[era1521]

I agree that unless you've committed a grave offence like terrorism, you really don't need to be worried about it. However - would this rule still apply if you were convicted by a foreign government of those charges, which I understand could be justified or not, depending on where you stand on the issue? For instance - the case of Mohamed Fahmy, which is referenced in the linked article.

Also - of the government were to revoke the citizenship of a person who wasn't a dual citizen, wouldn't that person become stateless? Consequently - who would be responsible for his/her sentencing and incarceration? Also - where would that person be deported to - if that was an option?

I could be and probably am wrong in my thinking, but these are the questions that came to mind.

Again, you would be worry of getting death penalty for such offenses by other foreign governments.
As for this fellow Fahmy, i wouldnt comment as long is an ongoing trial. But as an observation, he was provided with a temporary passport while pending the verdict. We will see how develops.

But is a fact that canadian government is seizing passports for individuals suspect of affiliation to a terror organization. Not even convicted!

 

[transformer]

I think they are putting this rule in effect as political tool to be able to revoke Umar kadrs citizenship the canadian talban gontinmo terist guy

 

[era1521]

I think they are putting this rule in effect as political tool to be able to revoke Umar kadrs citizenship the canadian talban gontinmo terist guy

the law is not retroactive

 

[CanadianCountry]

I disagree. The revocation law is retroactive.

the law is not retroactive

 

[dpenabill]

I think they are putting this rule in effect as political tool to be able to revoke Umar kadrs citizenship the canadian talban gontinmo terist guy

As noted in the topic about the effective date of Bill C-24 generally, this may indeed be an astute observation.

the law is not retroactive

I think CanadianCountry has this right in terms of the practical effect.

I disagree. The revocation law is retroactive.

The question is whether or not the law, as adopted (and now in force) can be applied to revoke citizenship for a past conviction of terrorism.

The provision itself purports to give the Minister such authority.

As revised by the SCCA, section 10(2) of the Citizenship Act specifically states (emphasis added):

"10(2) The Minister may revoke a person’s citizenship if the person, before or after the coming into force of this subsection and while the person was a citizen . . . (b) was convicted of a terrorism offence as defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code — or an offence outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would constitute a terrorism offence as defined in that section — and sentenced to at least five years of imprisonment;"

If Omar Khadr's conviction in the U.S. stands after appeal, he would indeed be such a person . . . assuming he has citizenship in Afghanistan, which I think he does as derived through his parents.

Whether or not this meets constitutional muster is another question.

Galati's challenge, which already raises this issue, is on appeal to the Court of Appeals. Even if Galati's challenge ultimately fails, the constitutional issue is bound to be litigated at length in any case in which the government attempts to employ these provisions.

There are many, many other questions and issues, many of which go to the core validity, or lack of validity, of these provisions . . . let alone the questions that could arise in the particulars of how they are applied. What a quagmire this is likely to be whenever the government moves to actually proceed on this.

Additionally the procedures themselves are quite likely to be the subject of extended litigation. While I am no constitutional law scholar, there are obviously a lot of at least arguable issues.

Additionally, Khadr's age at the time of the events leading to the charges may preclude the application of this law to him even if the courts otherwise uphold its constitutionality.

 

[SenoritaBella]

Khadr was born in Toronto. Even if they apply it retroactively, would they strip citizenship off a native born citizen even if they have dual citizenship? There are former child soldiers in Canada that came as refugees. Wouldn't they need to go after them too? I think this is more to do with the upcoming election(shoring their base) and preventing a repeat of that butt whooping in Alberta.

The other issue with this provision is convictions in foreign countries. Some gov'ts are so corrupt it's not beyond them to make up charges. How does the canadian gov't hope to actually "know" with certainty that the person committed this crime?

 

[alphazip]

If Omar Khadr's conviction in the U.S. stands after appeal, he would indeed be such a person . . . assuming he has citizenship in Afghanistan, which I think he does as derived through his parents.

While Khadr's father and Khadr himself were in Afghanistan for various periods, the father was originally Egyptian and the mother Palestinian. It's likely that Omar Khadr is a dual Canadian-Egyptian citizen.

 

[dpenabill]

While Khadr's father and Khadr himself were in Afghanistan for various periods, the father was originally Egyptian and the mother Palestinian. It's likely that Omar Khadr is a dual Canadian-Egyptian citizen.

Thanks for the correction. Of course the key fact is whether or not Khadr has citizenship in another country. And even if he does, what impact would renounciation of the other citizenship have.

Overall, Khadr is probably a long, long way from losing Canadian citizenship, but his case may very well have been the impetus, or at least a big influence, in the government's push to include these highly controversial provisions in the SCCA . . . for whatever reason, it is clear this government vehemently advocates lifetime punishment for Khadr despite his age and the influence of his father at the time of the events leading to the charges, injuries, and incarceration by the Americans.

Khadr was born in Toronto. Even if they apply it retroactively, would they strip citizenship off a native born citizen even if they have dual citizenship? There are former child soldiers in Canada that came as refugees. Wouldn't they need to go after them too? I think this is more to do with the upcoming election(shoring their base) and preventing a repeat of that butt whooping in Alberta.

The other issue with this provision is convictions in foreign countries. Some gov'ts are so corrupt it's not beyond them to make up charges. How does the canadian gov't hope to actually "know" with certainty that the person committed this crime?

The Citizenship Act's revocation provisions for terrorism do indeed apply to those who are citizen by birth as much as naturalized citizens (it is just that more naturalized citizens tend to have dual citizenship). And of course this is a big part of the Galati challenge, that Parliament does not have the power to take away citizenship from a person who is a citizen at birth due to being born in Canada.

The child soldier aspect of this is indeed perplexing. It is my understanding that Khadr fit the criteria but neither Canada nor the U.S. have ever recognized Khadr as a child soldier entitled to the protections afforded in the international agreements regarding child soldiers. As I alluded in my previous post, if the government does proceed to revoke Khadr's citizenship pursuant to the new law, obviously a major issue will be his age at the time of the events . . . both relative to the child soldier considerations and more generally relative to the degree of culpability Canada applies to a person that young.

In terms of the validity and enforceability in Canada of a conviction in other countries, this is an issue that would be addressed (pursuant to the new law) in the course of the proceedings to revoke citizenship. The new procedures include a big difference in the procedure to revoke citizenship for fraud versus terrorism, the latter necessarily requiring a Federal Court review not just of the decision to proceed on the revocation but, as I understand it, a substantive determination of the grounds. Thus, the theory is that any flaw in the process leading to the conviction abroad would be a basis for the court to not revoke citizenship. Moreover, it must be shown that the conviction is for acts that would be a comparable offence under Canadian law, and regarding this I think this will be applied both to the elements of the offence abroad and to the acts themselves. That is, my understanding is that the process in Canada will require proof of both the procedural conviction itself and proof of the underlying facts of the offence.

The bigger danger, it appears to me, is the creeping expansion of what Canada defines to be acts of terrorism. Bill C-51 which is poised to be approved by the Senate in the next couple weeks, and likely to receive Royal Assent before the summer recess, already moves things significantly in that direction. The boundary between acts of civil disobedience in activism for political causes and what is terrorism is shrinking. For example, Green Peace and PETA activists, and others opposed to the various pipeline proposals, as well as First Nations activists (such as those who blockade VIA Rail at times), all have very real concerns about the direction this is trending.

 

[boltz]

For a person who renounces his/her original citizenship (country X) after acquiring canadian citizenship - would this law apply? Technically the person is not a dual citizen any more... But this person was a citizen of country X by birth, and probably can apply again in future to country X.

This is applicable to ALL immigrant lead citizenships and more.

 

[dpenabill]

For a person who renounces his/her original citizenship (country X) after acquiring canadian citizenship - would this law apply? Technically the person is not a dual citizen any more... But this person was a citizen of country X by birth, and probably can apply again in future to country X.

This is applicable to ALL immigrant lead citizenships and more.

There is a lot about these changes which, in effect, remain to be seen.

One element of the new law which is both perplexing and disconcerting is that it imposes the burden of proving no other citizenship on the person whose Canadian citizenship is being revoked. Proving a negative is profoundly difficult.

There is little doubt that a great deal about how this law can and will be applied to particular individuals is wide, wide open to litigation which may not happen for many, many years, perhaps even decades . . . assuming the law itself withstands general constitutional challenges (it very well might NOT pass constitutional muster on its face, for multiple reasons . . . albeit the Federal Court, per a ruling by then Federal Court Justice Rennie, now sitting on the Court of Appeals, has ruled that these provisions are constitutional).

Illumination of how this law will in fact be applied may not happen until there is an actual case brought pursuant to it. Other than the Khadr case, it could be a long, long time before that happens . . . and even in the Khadr situation, it is not clear the government will proceed to revoke his citizenship or that even if it decided to pursue this against Khadr that this would commence any time soon.

My sense is that a big part of what the government's purpose is, underlying the adoption of this law, is political on one hand (conveying to the public that the Conservatives are the Party which actually acts to protect Canada and Canadians from terrorists) and on the other hand creating a disincentive which, the government hopes, will discourage Canadians from going abroad for purposes like joining ISIS . . . albeit, as alluded to in my previous post, I also suspect there is some intent to move the goal posts relative to acts of civil disobedience, to in effect further chill political activism of that sort.

 

[boltz]

There is a lot about these changes which, in effect, remain to be seen.

One element of the new law which is both perplexing and disconcerting is that it imposes the burden of proving no other citizenship on the person whose Canadian citizenship is being revoked. Proving a negative is profoundly difficult.

There is little doubt that a great deal about how this law can and will be applied to particular individuals is wide, wide open to litigation which may not happen for many, many years, perhaps even decades . . . assuming the law itself withstands general constitutional challenges (it very well might NOT pass constitutional muster on its face, for multiple reasons . . . albeit the Federal Court, per a ruling by then Federal Court Justice Rennie, now sitting on the Court of Appeals, has ruled that these provisions are constitutional).

Illumination of how this law will in fact be applied may not happen until there is an actual case brought pursuant to it. Other than the Khadr case, it could be a long, long time before that happens . . . and even in the Khadr situation, it is not clear the government will proceed to revoke his citizenship or that even if it decided to pursue this against Khadr that this would commence any time soon.

My sense is that a big part of what the government's purpose is, underlying the adoption of this law, is political on one hand (conveying to the public that the Conservatives are the Party which actually acts to protect Canada and Canadians from terrorists) and on the other hand creating a disincentive which, the government hopes, will discourage Canadians from going abroad for purposes like joining ISIS . . . albeit, as alluded to in my previous post, I also suspect there is some intent to move the goal posts relative to acts of civil disobedience, to in effect further chill political activism of that sort.

So, in my example, if the person has renounced his/her citz from country X, would that satisfy this law/clause? Or will revocation still apply?