Help defeat the Conservatives for Bill C-24 (Federal Elections - October 19th)

[screech339]

The vague part is related to the nature of conviction, i.e. some one may call DUI a terrorism. Would this law apply? The second point of vagueness comes from the fact that you may be convicted by some phony puppet court (think Egypt and Fahmy case).

Only an idiot would try to group a DUI conviction with terrorism conviction together. They are completely separate issues / circumstances. Apples and oranges here. Are you trying to put a 1 inch square block (DUI) into a 1 inch round hole (Terrorism)

As for Fahmy's case, as it stood, he was charged with improper documentations and false news. No charge of terrorism in fact. So in fahmy's case, he wouldn't have lost his citizenship. If in the event that he was officially charged with terrorism related charges and convicted, he would still not lose his citizenship. In order to lose his citizenship in Canada, his case must be reviewed according to Canadian law. If they came to the same conclusion of guilty as charged using the same evidences presented in court, then he would lose it. But we all know that Canadian Law would NOT come to the same conclusion.

 

[screech339]

Precisely.

Take a look at my response to taleodor's post.

 

[screech339]

To be clear, it is probably apparent that my personal vote leans Green or NDP, and in this election, for my riding I support the NDP candidate even though I would, but for the imperative to avoid Harper forming another government even though more than 60 percent of those who vote, vote against him, vote for our incumbent who has been one of the only two members of Parliament from the Green Party.

Many seem to overlook that the Conservatives formed a majority government following the 2011 election despite receiving less than 40% of the votes cast in the election. Yet, despite more than 60 percent of those who actually voted voting against him, Harper has governed with minimal regard for any view other than that which is held within what was his extremely close circle of advisers . . . many of whom are now gone, including Ben Perrin, Nigel Wright, John Baird, and including the loss of Jim Flaherty. Observers seem unsure whether Jason Kenney and Joe Oliver were in or just close to that circle, but the circle appears to be reduced to three these days, Ray Novak, Jason Kenney, and Joe Oliver.

1993: Chretien won with 41.2% vs (vote splitting 18.69% Reform + 16.04 Tories) combined 34.7% despite 71% turnout of the votes cast in the election. High voter turnout is due to GST protest.
(Overall 59% didn't vote for Chretien.)

1997: Chretien won with 38.46% vs (vote splitting 19.35% Reform + 18.84 Tories) combined 38.2% despite 67% turnout of the votes cast in the election.
(Overall 61.5% didn't vote for Chretien.)

2000: Chretien won with 38.5% vs (vote splitting 25.49% Alliance + 12.19 Tories) combined 37.7% despite 64% turnout of the votes cast in the election.
(Overall 61.5% didn't vote for Chretien.)

2004: Martin won with 36.7% vs (vote splitting 25.49% Alliance + 12.19 Tories) combined 37.7% despite 61% turnout of the votes cast in the election.
(Overall 63% didn't vote for Martin.)

Chretien and Martin took advantage of the vote splitting due to the breakup of the same party.

2006: Harper 36.3%; Liberals 30.2%; NDP : 17.5%

Using your words here:
Many seem to overlook that the Conservatives formed a government following the 2006 election despite 65% turnout of the votes cast in the election. Yet, 70% didn't vote for Liberals and 83% didn't vote for NDP.

2008: Harper 37.65%; Liberals 26.3%; NDP : 18.2%.

Many seem to overlook that the Conservatives formed a government following the 2008 election despite 59% turnout of the votes cast in the election. Yet, 73% didn't vote for Liberals and 82% didn't vote for NDP.

2011: Harper 39.6%; NDP 30.6%; Liberals 18.9%.

Many seem to overlook that the Conservatives formed a government following the 2011 election despite 61% turnout of the votes cast in the election. Yet, 70% didn't vote for NDP and 81% didn't vote for Liberals.

So nice try spinning the statistics here.

BTW: So according to you it is okay for Chretien and Martin to get majority government with pretty much the same numbers that Harper has gotten but NOT for Harper (In both cases, both obtained majority government with less than 40% of the popular vote)? Again talk about double standard.

 

[taleodor]

Only an idiot would try to group a DUI conviction with terrorism conviction together. They are completely separate issues / circumstances. Apples and oranges here. Are you trying to put a 1 inch square block (DUI) into a 1 inch round hole (Terrorism)

As for Fahmy's case, as it stood, he was charged with improper documentations and false news. No charge of terrorism in fact. So in fahmy's case, he wouldn't have lost his citizenship. If in the event that he was officially charged with terrorism related charges and convicted, he would still not lose his citizenship. In order to lose his citizenship in Canada, his case must be reviewed according to Canadian law. If they came to the same conclusion of guilty as charged using the same evidences presented in court, then he would lose it. But we all know that Canadian Law would NOT come to the same conclusion.

What you're writing here is correct in principle. Unfortunately, it's a wishful thinking, since none of these is clearly written in C-24. I.e., there is nothing clearly stated in the law to protect a citizen from an imaginable 'idiot' you are talking about. That is exactly why the law is vague and needs to be repealed in its current form.

 

[screech339]

What you're writing here is correct in principle. Unfortunately, it's a wishful thinking, since none of this is clearly written in C-24. I.e., there is nothing clearly stated in the law to protect a citizen from an imaginable 'idiot' you are talking about. That is exactly why the law is vague and needs to be repealed in its current form.

The only imaginable idiot I see, is anyone thinking any other convictions other than the 3 listed in the law is reason for citizenship revoking when there isn't any other. That person need need look at the law before using DUI as an excuse. Anyone who tried to group any other convictions with terrorism/citizenship fraud/treason is not being vague. He/she is being an "idiot".

 

[taleodor]

This does not look like a respectful discussion to me. I hope, people capable to analyze facts got the argument about vagueness.

Idiot or not, a minister can strip someone of their citizenship without a court ruling on this specific matter. Which is not a due process. Period. That's a short explanation of what is wrong in this law.

 

[screech339]

This does not look like a respectful discussion to me. I hope, people capable to analyze facts got the argument about vagueness.

Idiot or not, a minister can strip someone of their citizenship without a court ruling on this specific matter. Which is not a due process. Period. That's a short explanation of what is wrong in this law.

Sorry. I have to respectfully totally disagree with the premise that a minister can strip anyone of citizenship without a court ruling, without a conviction. You had your due process in court which ended up with a conviction. Again the minister doesn't need a court ruling on the sentencing part of of the conviction of which revoking citizenship is part of the sentencing.

No offense, why is this an issue now when citizenship fraud and treason was part of the old citizenship law. Nobody made any fart about it until terrorism is simply added to the list, nothing more.

 

[keesio]

So nice try spinning the statistics here.

BTW: So according to you it is okay for Chretien and Martin to get majority government with pretty much the same numbers that Harper has gotten but NOT for Harper (In both cases, both obtained majority government with less than 40% of the popular vote)? Again talk about double standard.

Agreed. I'm tired of pointing this out to people (Liberals were winning majority governments in the 90s with the same percentage that the Conservatives did in the last election). Basically it just confirms that people (of all sides) only complain that the rules are flawed when it doesn't go their way.

 

[torontosm]

Of course a sudden inflow of immigrants won't improve infrastructure right away. I'm talking about the size of existing population. For example, the US has 9 times the population of Canada, then they should have about 9x the roads for transportation, 9x the power plants for electricity, 9x the shopping malls for shopping, etc. This is based on the fact that they are on about the same level as a developed country, obviously.

This argument only holds if the 9x population is working and contributing to the economy. If you suddenly bring 5 million more people to Canada, they won't find work and won't be able to contribute enough in taxes to build the requisite infrastructure. As such, infrastructure is linked to the economy, which is only partially linked to population.

 

[taleodor]

Sorry. I have to respectfully totally disagree with the premise that a minister can strip anyone of citizenship without a court ruling, without a conviction. You had your due process in court which ended up with a conviction. Again the minister doesn't need a court ruling on the sentencing part of of the conviction of which revoking citizenship is part of the sentencing.

No offense, why is this an issue now when citizenship fraud and treason was part of the old citizenship law. Nobody made any fart about it until terrorism is simply added to the list, nothing more.

Did you ever live in the totalitarian/authoritarian country? Do you know what the phrase 'abusing the law' means?

If not, I'll explain to you. If a minister has a wish to do something, which is technically illegal but can possibly be fit into a very stretched understanding of a law, (s)he could do so.

Now, a court ruling on a criminal offence and another ruling on citizenship are not the same things. One does not imply the other, no matter what, but C-24 says the opposite. That is why it allows abuse, that is why it is a bad law and needs to be repealed.

 

[torontosm]

If not, I'll explain to you. If a minister has a wish to do something, which is technically illegal but can possibly be fit into a very stretched understanding of a law, (s)he could do so.

How in the world can the Minister convict someone, which is a clear prerequisite for stripping that person of citizenship?

 

[screech339]

Did you ever live in the totalitarian/authoritarian country? Do you know what the phrase 'abusing the law' means?

If you mean by China, Russia, North Korea or during communist regime before communism collapse, then no I have not live in a totalitarian / authoritarian state.

You mean a minister has the authority to convict someone without court ruling? Wow. I didn't know Canada has turned into North Korea. (being sarcastic here).

 

[screech339]

It seems like this forum is filled with comments about why not to vote for the Cons, but I don't see too many people touting the pros of voting for any other party. Remember, you can't just vote against Harper....you have to vote for someone. Do you really think the NDP and Liberals would be better?

There are some who suffer from HDS (Harper Derangement Syndrome).

 

[taleodor]

If you mean by China, Russia, North Korea or during communist regime before communism collapse, then no I have not live in a totalitarian / authoritarian state.

You mean a minister has the authority to convict someone without court ruling? Wow. I didn't know Canada has turned into North Korea. (being sarcastic here).

There are two very recent examples of how Harper Government abuses laws. First is Mike Duffy appointment as PEI senator, second is Mark Nadon appointment to represent Quebec.

Now why do you think a minister cannot stretch a DUI conviction to a terrorism? According to C-24, the burden to prove the contrary would be on the person stripped of the citizenship. Such minister can just do it. Why do you think it's not possible?

For your information, China, Russia and North Korea did not turn totalitarian in a single day. Should I tell you what Harper thinks about Canadian Supreme Court for instance?

 

[Natan]

Under current Israeli law, someone caught throwing a stone at the Israeli police/military in the West Bank can be convicted of terrorism. The Canadian government considers Israel a modern, liberal democracy under the rule of law. Thus, a convicted Palestinian rock thrower, ahem, terrorist, could have their Canadian citizenship stripped from them, under the terms of C-24. This, despite the fact that throwing a stone at Canadian police or military personnel would not be considered an act of terrorism in Canada.

In another example, a minor is captured after a battle, that occurred in a war zone, by soldiers invading his country, right after an explosion kills one of the invading soldiers. The minor is imprisoned and tortured, and after a decade of incarceration, pleads guilty to the "murder" of the invading solder, in the hopes of eventually being released from incarceration. The invading country's court convicts him of terrorism based on his "confession". Under C-24, the ministry would be within the law to strip this convict of his Canadian citizenship. This, despite the fact that a minor cannot be convicted as an adult under Canadian law, nor can evidence obtained by torture be used in a Canadian court of law.

It is also important to note that C-24 allows the revocation of citizenship of someone who <b>the ministry</b> asserts is eligible for other citizenship. It is up to the hapless <b>ex</b>-citizen to prove <b>to the ministry's satisfaction</b> that they cannot obtain citizenship elsewhere. There are approximately 170 countries on this planet, surely <b>one of them</b> might extend citizenship to you -- prove that they won't!

It is entirely possible that someone who was born and raised in Canada and can cite parents, grandparents, great grandparents and great great grandparents who were born and raised in Canada, could have their citizenship stripped from them because the ministry <b>asserts</b> they are eligible for citizenship elsewhere. This could even apply to members of First Nations, Inuit and Metis.

Unfortunately, the law does not state that a person must be convicted of terrorism in a Canadian court of law. Nor does it exclude citizens whose history in Canada goes back generations, centuries or even millennia.