Effective date of Bill C24

[KrisR]

You will be fine as windsor is your residency thus maintain your "intent to reside" during citizenship process.

Thank you Screech - Your response definitely provides a bit of relief.

What is concerning is the following provisions spelt out in the order without an "or" clause that is worrying

Paragraph 5(1)(c.1) of the Citizenship Act, as amended by the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act (SCCA), states that an applicant must intend, if granted citizenship,

to continue to reside in Canada;
to enter into, or continue in, employment outside Canada in or with the Canadian Armed Forces, the federal public administration or the public service of a province, otherwise than as a locally engaged person;

What is troubling is that the perspective of intent (as seen for cases like these ) might differ substantially and Hope to not be a casualty of the process ...

 

[screech339]

As observed already elsewhere, the premise here is false.

There was no revocation of citizenship for treason in the Citizenship Act before Bill C-24 enumerated a number of criminal convictions constituting grounds for revoking citizenship, including a conviction for treason as prescribed by Section 47 of the Criminal Code.

Repeal of those provisions will not affect the provisions specifying grounds for revocation based on fraud or misrepresentation. Again, this only takes away that which was not legally obtained, so is not considered an act which results in statelessness, and this is consistent with the international agreements, regarding statelessness, which Canada is a party to.

The point is not to reduce or eliminate penalties for the various crimes specified as grounds for revoking citizenship, but to recognize that citizenship itself is not a commodity, that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.

Technically the Liberals could simply repeal section 10.4, which is the statute in effect creating two tiers of citizenship, but that would clearly make section 10.(2) invalid anyway. And my sense is that there is a high probability the Supreme Court of Canada would reject these provisions anyway (may do so yet, depending on if and when the repeal of these provisions take place and whether that is deemed to render already pending cases moot), despite the ruling to the contrary by Justice Donald Rennie (when he was still a Federal Court Justice, before his appointment to the Federal Court of Appeals).

Banishment, after all, was a medieval practice which has long been rejected by modern nations.

Actually there was a case of a Canadian man who was stripped on his citizenship due to treason in the past. His name was Fred Rose. So to say there was no history of citizenship stripped due to treason is FALSE.

If PM King can revise the citizenship law to prevent removal of citizenship, future PM's can also revise the law to allow removal of citizenship.

Funny that Britain, France and now Australia is joining Canada in stripping citizenship from dual terrorists. If Britain, France and Australia are doing it, that doesn't sound medival to me. That is called keeping up with the realities of modern times.

 

[Natan]

If Britain, France and Australia are doing it, that doesn't sound medival to me. That is called keeping up with the realities of modern times.

So, if Tommy jumps off the bridge, you're going to jump off too?

Politicians are all too prone to prop up their careers by victimizing the most vulnerable of citizens, because it is popular and wins votes. Victimizing those convicted of terrorism, possibly the most vulnerable of citizens in any western society, grabs headlines, wins votes and shows one to be tough on crime. But victimizing vulnerable citizens, no matter how popular with the electorate, is wrong and dangerous. Dangerous, because it wasn't very long ago that those vulnerable citizens being victimized by Canada were First Nations, the Metis, the Inuit, the Quebecois, the Japanese, and the Chinese. Rewarding politicians for victimizing citizens is a dangerous path to tread, one that leads to very dark places -- just ask the Germans!

 

[screech339]

So, if Tommy jumps off the bridge, you're going to jump off too?

Politicians are all too prone to prop up their careers by victimizing the most vulnerable of citizens, because it is popular and wins votes. Victimizing those convicted of terrorism, possibly the most vulnerable of citizens in any western society, grabs headlines, wins votes and shows one to be tough on crime. But victimizing vulnerable citizens, no matter how popular with the electorate, is wrong and dangerous. Dangerous, because it wasn't very long ago that those vulnerable citizens being victimized by Canada were First Nations, the Metis, the Inuit, the Quebecois, the Japanese, and the Chinese. Rewarding politicians for victimizing citizens is a dangerous path to tread, one that leads to very dark places -- just ask the Germans!

Since you use historical cases for justification of not allowing citizenship stripping. The examples you gave is based on ignorant of people purely on racial differences. You are trying to play a racist card. Examples you gave has nothing to do with terrorism. Terrorism is not a race. Terrorism like cancer knows no race, sex or age.

And yet you made no reference to my post about historical record of Fred Rose who lost citizenship due to treason. A precedent has been made in the past. The case proved that citizenship can be taken away.

 

[Natan]

Since you use historical cases for justification of not allowing citizenship stripping. The examples you gave is based on ignorant of people purely on racial differences. You are trying to play a racist card. Examples you gave has nothing to do with terrorism. Terrorism is not a race. Terrorism like cancer knows no race, sex or age.

And yet you made no reference to my post about historical record of Fred Rose who lost citizenship due to treason. A precedent has been made in the past. The case proved that citizenship can be taken away.

The salient point I am making, if I may repeat myself, is, <b>rewarding politicians for victimizing citizens is a dangerous path to tread, one that leads to very dark places -- just ask the Germans!</b>

German politicians, in the 1930s and '40s, were rewarded by their citizenry for their crimes against Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, the crippled, the mentally disabled, the intelligentsia, bankers, liberals, homosexuals, transsexuals, in short, against a whole array of vulnerable citizens. They didn't attack them all at once, to be sure; no, they went after each class of vulnerable citizen one-by-one. Invariably, it started with diminishing their citizenship as a class, then revoking citizenship from objectionable individuals of that class, and later revoking citizenship from the entire class, followed by declaring the class enemies of the state, and finally eradicating said enemies. A very dark road, indeed.

 

[Natan]

Since you use historical cases for justification of not allowing citizenship stripping. The examples you gave is based on ignorant of people purely on racial differences. You are trying to play a racist card. Examples you gave has nothing to do with terrorism. Terrorism is not a race. Terrorism like cancer knows no race, sex or age.

And yet you made no reference to my post about historical record of Fred Rose who lost citizenship due to treason. A precedent has been made in the past. The case proved that citizenship can be taken away.

Although the German word "Terrorist" wasn't in general usage in Germany during the 1930s and '40s, the idea was there. The equivalent label was used against Jews who were accused of waging a war against Germany; against Bolsheviks who were accused of waging a war against Germany; against the intelligentsia and liberals -- the enemies from within; against the mentally ill for weakening the master race; against homosexuals for murdering tomorrow's children. Politicians attacking terrorists is nothing new, nor is a citizenry rewarding them for doing so, nor are the pogroms, genocides and holocausts that have accompanied such attacks. Human history is littered with the detritus of our inhumanity to one another.

The moment we reward politicians for punishing a class of people in a way they do not punish the rest of us, and at the same time give them the power to define who belongs to that class of people, we start down a slippery slope. In my view, the best way to judge a society is by how it treats its most vulnerable members, e.g., it's criminals, it's political dissidents (even the violent ones), it's traitors, it's aboriginal peoples, it's hated minorities.

 

[screech339]

Although the German word "Terrorist" wasn't in general usage in Germany during the 1930s and '40s, the idea was there. The equivalent label was used against Jews who were accused of waging a war against Germany; against Bolsheviks who were accused of waging a war against Germany; against the intelligentsia and liberals -- the enemies from within; against the mentally ill for weakening the master race; against homosexuals for murdering tomorrow's children. Politicians attacking terrorists is nothing new, nor is a citizenry rewarding them for doing so, nor are the pogroms, genocides and holocausts that have accompanied such attacks. Human history is littered with the detritus of our inhumanity to one another.

The moment we reward politicians for punishing a class of people in a way they do not punish the rest of us, and at the same time give them the power to define who belongs to that class of people, we start down a slippery slope. In my view, the best way to judge a society is by how it treats its most vulnerable members, e.g., it's criminals, it's political dissidents (even the violent ones), it's traitors, it's aboriginal peoples, it's hated minorities.

You are again trying to group minority terrorists with minority race or religion together. You are trying to make terrorists as same people as aboriginals, asians, people that are born in. Are you saying people are born terrorists?

It's pretty sad that you think terrorists falls in the minority thus be treated the same as racial / religious minorities.