Denial of right to vote for lawful citizens
- Thread starter sukh49
- Start date
And it still is (a privilege). Modal verb shall does not refer to the future here (shall does not equal will). Shall (used with third person in this sentence) refers to the Minister's formal function and duties. So no, it does not read: 'The Minister will grant citizenship to a qualified applicant.'bambino said:
Why is the provision titled "The Right to Citizenship"? Remember Canada is one of the best democracy in the world and they don't want an individual to have the "discretion" (the Minister) to decide who becomes Canadian...aed said:And it still is (a privilege). Modal verb shall does not refer to the future here (shall does not equal will). Shall (used with third person in this sentence) refers to the Minister's formal function and duties. So no, it does not read: 'The Minister will grant citizenship to a qualified applicant.'
Wrong. It has nothing to do with the future tense. If you want to rephrase it using another modal verb, "must" would be a lot more appropriate.aed said:And it still is (a privilege). Modal verb shall does not refer to the future here (shall does not equal will). Shall (used with third person in this sentence) refers to the Minister's formal function and duties. So no, it does not read: 'The Minister will grant citizenship to a qualified applicant.'
The term "shall" has a very specific meaning in statutory interpretation. It is construed as being imperative or mandatory, along the lines of the following definition in the Oxford dictionary:
Shall is used quite often in legalese, and in this case, not necessarily in the meaning you would like it to be used.bambino said:
You say obligation, I say discretionary action, because shall is imprecise. We're beating a dead horse here. It has been discussed before (e.g. http://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2011/05/legal_writing and references). So, I suggest going back to the ABC rule. As Michel said, this debate is akhem pointless. Though, I admit entertaining. One day the government will say you loose your citizenship because you posted a sentence against the "God" immigration minister on a news website - well you loose it, I mean the minister has all the rights to do so per C24. C24 doesn't define "what an activity against country mean". Minister defines that category that what 'defines' taking the citizenship away. By a future or even current ministers standard, writing a sentence on a website against government may amount to terrorism and it is all left open in C24 for your(actually your ministers) convenience...Michels said:
What a bunch of government cronies lurking around.
Yes, debate will happen and doesnt matter what you or government says....or you can always move to Syria or some country where no debate happens and government's word is final - I guess you belong there per your words and mindset.
The point is to challenge the government to not delay applications for years to prevent exercise of voting rights, and I see lot of government cronies who believe government's word is final, lurking around here. I guess that's how they were brought up - follow, dont ask, just follow. And keep counting the days....there is a special thread waiting for you.
I encourage you to read section 10 of the Act. Here's a short excerpt:sukh49 said:
"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,
(a) was convicted under section 47 of the Criminal Code of treason and sentenced to imprisonment for life or was convicted of high treason under that section;
(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;
(c) was convicted of an offence under any of sections 73 to 76 of the National Defence Act and sentenced to imprisonment for life because the person acted traitorously;
(d) was convicted of an offence under section 78 of the National Defence Act and sentenced to imprisonment for life;
(e) was convicted of an offence under section 130 of the National Defence Act in respect of an act or omission that is punishable under section 47 of the Criminal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life;
(f) was convicted under the National Defence Act of a terrorism offence as defined in subsection 2(1) of that Act and sentenced to at least five years of imprisonment;
(g) was convicted of an offence described in section 16 or 17 of the Security of Information Act and sentenced to imprisonment for life; or
(h) was convicted of an offence under section 130 of the National Defence Act in respect of an act or omission that is punishable under section 16 or 17 of the Security of Information Act and sentenced to imprisonment for life."
and so on.
Are you trying to offend those who disagree with you by... comparing them to the people of Syria? I don't feel offended.sukh49 said:
How about you share your timeline with us? Please? Because you're talking about all these years of waiting and waiting and waiting. Is your application non-routine?sukh49 said:
Wait, you said that already.sukh49 said:
1. Citizenship is a Privilege and not a Right. If it was a right and assuming an individual met with all the legislative requirements to become a Canadian Citizen, you do not need to apply for becoming one.
2. Untill and unless, The Government of Canada decides that an individual have met all the requirements of becoming a Canadian Citizen, he/she cannot vote. You can only vote if you are deemed a Canadian Citizen, does not matter how long the process takes, you cannot vote during the processing of your application.
3. Once you become a Canadian Citizen, you have got rights and duties/responsibilities of a Canadian Citizen.
Simple as that.
2. Untill and unless, The Government of Canada decides that an individual have met all the requirements of becoming a Canadian Citizen, he/she cannot vote. You can only vote if you are deemed a Canadian Citizen, does not matter how long the process takes, you cannot vote during the processing of your application.
3. Once you become a Canadian Citizen, you have got rights and duties/responsibilities of a Canadian Citizen.
Simple as that.
I certainly share the belief that citizenship ("the right to have rights") is important and those rights should not be delayed for the political gain of politicians or parties. Which, frankly, I think happened in 2012-2013.
It depressing to hear prospective citizens demean the value of the rights they seek ("why the fuss? why the rush to vote" as though citizenship and democratic participation lack importance.
But, as others have noted, applicants have limited options for speeding processing, especially if seeking to do so collectively. I could get more into that if people are interested, but basically, the CIC is required to process applications in a "reasonable" amount of time and if it fails in that duty, applicants can file for individual Writ Of Mandamus. The courts have given wide, but not unlimited, latitude to CIC to define for themselves what reasonable is. Usually the courts use the 80% processing time statistic as a guideline.
http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/73421/index.do
Tumarkin decision acknowledges that the CIC does not have carte blanche to unilaterally define "reasonable" as the average processing timeline:
[18] While average waiting times are not necessarily determinative of acting “within a reasonable time”, such averages give a benchmark from which to assess delay regarding both the particular file and the system. In this case, the processing of Mr. Tumarkin's application falls within the average wait time and there is no evidence that the average is created by a malfunctioning under-resourced system.
If applicants are eager to vote, there are some municipalities that are considering extending municipal voting rights to PRs. Consider advocating for that. Consider showing up to city council meetings. Consider joining a political party. Consider becoming involved in your neighbourhood and your community. From personal experience I can say that it eases the annoyance of politicians toying with your right to have rights.
It depressing to hear prospective citizens demean the value of the rights they seek ("why the fuss? why the rush to vote" as though citizenship and democratic participation lack importance.
But, as others have noted, applicants have limited options for speeding processing, especially if seeking to do so collectively. I could get more into that if people are interested, but basically, the CIC is required to process applications in a "reasonable" amount of time and if it fails in that duty, applicants can file for individual Writ Of Mandamus. The courts have given wide, but not unlimited, latitude to CIC to define for themselves what reasonable is. Usually the courts use the 80% processing time statistic as a guideline.
http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/73421/index.do
Tumarkin decision acknowledges that the CIC does not have carte blanche to unilaterally define "reasonable" as the average processing timeline:
[18] While average waiting times are not necessarily determinative of acting “within a reasonable time”, such averages give a benchmark from which to assess delay regarding both the particular file and the system. In this case, the processing of Mr. Tumarkin's application falls within the average wait time and there is no evidence that the average is created by a malfunctioning under-resourced system.
If applicants are eager to vote, there are some municipalities that are considering extending municipal voting rights to PRs. Consider advocating for that. Consider showing up to city council meetings. Consider joining a political party. Consider becoming involved in your neighbourhood and your community. From personal experience I can say that it eases the annoyance of politicians toying with your right to have rights.
I have a question for the people who argue that citizenship is a privilege -- if it is, where in the process does the 'privilege' exist? Does it mean, for example:
- I and another person with the same residency period in Canada apply at the same time, but the government chooses not to give one of us citizenship? Is that possible?
- two people take the test and receive identical scores, but one is deemed unacceptable for citizenship? Can that happen?
- when I show up for the oath and the officer doesn't like my accent, can I be turned away?
The reason that I ask these, is that my understanding of citizenship is that granting it is governed by statutes, and if you meet their requirements, you will be granted citizenship. It can be delayed if the government decides that whether you met their requirements is in doubt; but even then, the government is required to make a decision. If you met them, you'll be granted citizenship, if not, then not.
So, given that receiving citizenship is governed by statutes that the government cannot ignore, where is the privilege? Are the people who argue that Canadian citizenship is a privilege really comfortable with the government exercising that, and deciding that certain people won't receive it even though they fulfill statutory requirements?
- I and another person with the same residency period in Canada apply at the same time, but the government chooses not to give one of us citizenship? Is that possible?
- two people take the test and receive identical scores, but one is deemed unacceptable for citizenship? Can that happen?
- when I show up for the oath and the officer doesn't like my accent, can I be turned away?
The reason that I ask these, is that my understanding of citizenship is that granting it is governed by statutes, and if you meet their requirements, you will be granted citizenship. It can be delayed if the government decides that whether you met their requirements is in doubt; but even then, the government is required to make a decision. If you met them, you'll be granted citizenship, if not, then not.
So, given that receiving citizenship is governed by statutes that the government cannot ignore, where is the privilege? Are the people who argue that Canadian citizenship is a privilege really comfortable with the government exercising that, and deciding that certain people won't receive it even though they fulfill statutory requirements?