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

[screech339]

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.

The Palestinian wouldn't lost citizenship because there is no equivalent of a charge of terrorism for rock throwing. Remember the conviction must meet Canadian law to justify stripping citizenship. So the Palestinian won't lose citizenship over rock throwing.

I know you are using Omar Khadr as an example of the minor. If I'm not mistaken, his whole family hated Canadian or Western way of life. Strange that if the whole family hated Canada, why are they here to begin with. Oh I know, to leach off Canada's social cost at everyone else tax expenses, meanwhile advocating terrorism against western countries. Talk about biting the hand that feed you.

As for proving you cannot obtain another citizenship, as far as I'm concerned, no one is truly stateless unless proven otherwise. So if you can prove you only hold Canadian citizenship and nothing else, then what's the problem. All you have to do is prove it to them by actually applying for the other citizenship. If you get denied, you proved it to the minister.

As for obtaining citizenship by descent, the most you can go back is your grandparents. Even then very few can actually get citizenship through grandparent.
Not sure why you even bring in the aboriginal issues. They have Canadian or American citizenship.

Yes the law does say that the person must be convicted of terrorism in order to be stripped of citizenship and foreign terrorism charge must also meet Canadian Law too.

 

[taleodor]

The Palestinian wouldn't lost citizenship because there is no equivalent of a charge of terrorism for rock throwing. Remember the conviction must meet Canadian law to justify stripping citizenship. So the Palestinian won't lose citizenship over rock throwing.

I know you are using Omar Khadr as an example of the minor. If I'm not mistaken, his whole family hated Canadian or Western way of life. Strange that if the whole family hated Canada, why are they here to begin with. Oh I know, to leach off Canada's social cost at everyone else tax expenses, meanwhile advocating terrorism against western countries. Talk about biting the hand that feed you.

As for proving you cannot obtain another citizenship, as far as I'm concerned, no one is truly stateless unless proven otherwise. So if you can prove you only hold Canadian citizenship and nothing else, then what's the problem. All you have to do is prove it to them by actually applying for the other citizenship. If you get denied, you proved it to the minister.

As for obtaining citizenship by descent, the most you can go back is your grandparents. Even then very few can actually get citizenship through grandparent.
Not sure why you even bring in the aboriginal issues. They have Canadian or American citizenship.

Yes the law does say that the person must be convicted of terrorism in order to be stripped of citizenship.

This response is amazing... Did you actually read the statement you are responding to?

This assumption of yours 'Remember the conviction must meet Canadian law to justify stripping citizenship.' is false. And it's precisely explained why it's false in the comment you are replying to. It's really-really hard to keep this conversation going.

From my prospective, I believe the issue is explained and we just need more help to get Harper out of the office -- so please donate and/or volunteer against Conservatives in this campaign.

 

[taleodor]

This is what Canadian Bar has to say on the subject:

'The definition of terrorism is often grounded in the political context. In many countries, one
side of a conflict will frame the other side as terrorism. This has been particularly true for most
national liberation movements. Nelson Mandela was convicted of what could be considered a
terrorism offence under the Criminal Code and sentenced to life in prison in South Africa. The
proposed section would have the further oddity of not including conduct in Canada pre-dating
the relevant sections of the Criminal Code but including that conduct abroad. Convictions
resulting from the FLQ crisis in the 1970s are a good example of conduct that would not lead to
revocation under Bill C-24, even though Canada was the direct target. However, that same
conduct occurring abroad, even against a dictatorial regime, would be subject to the Bill.'

From here: https://www.cba.org/CBA/submissions/pdf/14-22-eng.pdf

 

[screech339]

This response is amazing... Did you actually read the statement you are responding to?

This assumption of yours 'Remember the conviction must meet Canadian law to justify stripping citizenship.' is false. And it's precisely explained why it's false in the comment you are replying to. It's really-really hard to keep this conversation going.

From my prospective, I believe the issue is explained and we just need more help to get Harper out of the office -- so please donate and/or volunteer against Conservatives in this campaign.

I guess you have forgotten that those who gotten foreign DUI conviction of 0.05% do not get denied PR to Canada because there is no DUI charge at 0.05% in Canada. If you gotten a DUI conviction due to being at 0.08% or more, then Canada would not accept your PR because the foreign DUI charge meets Canadian Law of DUI conviction. So yes foreign terrorism conviction must still meet Canadian court of law. If you don't believe that, then how do you explain those who gotten PR with foreign DUI conviction of less than 0.08%.

If you truly believe that Canada will accept foreign terrorism convictions at face value according Canadian law, I guess, Canada according to you must deny every PR applicant with a foreign DUI conviction regardless of it's alcohol content. Turkmenistan's DUI is 0%. So if you got caught drinking a sip of beer there before driving, you can have a DUI conviction, I mean just a sip si they have 0%. According to you, that person is banned to Canada.

 

[taleodor]

I guess you have forgotten that those who gotten foreign DUI conviction of 0.05% do not get denied PR to Canada because there is no DUI charge at 0.05% in Canada. If you gotten a DUI conviction due to being at 0.08% or more, then Canada would not accept your PR because the foreign DUI charge meets Canadian Law of DUI conviction. So yes foreign terrorism conviction must still meet Canadian court of law. If you don't believe that, then how do you explain those who gotten PR with DUI of less than 0.08%.

I've just provided you with a proof. What you're saying is what should be in the law, but it is not what it is in the law (C-24). That is why it's a bad law.

The whole thing is about there is no Canadian court of law involved. Only a minister and his/her decision. In theory, a person stripped of their citizenship may then go to court. But without a citizenship that is presumably very problematic.

 

[screech339]

I've just provided you with a proof. What you're saying is what should be in the law, but it is not what it is in the law (C-24). That is why it's a bad law.

The whole thing is about there is no Canadian court of law involved. Only a minister and his/her decision. In theory, a person stripped of their citizenship may then go to court. But without a citizenship that is presumably very problematic.

There was Canadian court involved. You got convicted of terrorism. That's the court being involved. The revoking of citizenship is part of the sentencing process.

First of all, Canada cannot make a person stateless. So the convicted will not be stateless. Canada cannot deport the person unless the person has other citizenship. So if the person has other citizenship, he can make appeal to court from outside Canada.

 

[taleodor]

There was Canadian court involved. You got convicted of terrorism. That's the court being involved. The revoking of citizenship is part of the sentencing process.

That is completely false. According to the current law, that can be any court whatsoever, including say the North Korean courts. Then a minister is allowed to interpret that court's decision based on Canadian laws. There's is no requirement for Canadian courts to participate.

P.s. I encourage you to go through the whole Bar review for deeper analysis.

 

[Natan]

The Palestinian wouldn't lost citizenship because there is no equivalent of a charge of terrorism for rock throwing. Remember the conviction must meet Canadian law to justify stripping citizenship. So the Palestinian won't lose citizenship over rock throwing.

The Ministry asks a Canadian judge to review a brief for revocation of citizenship. The brief states that a Canadian citizen was convicted of a terrorist act in an Israeli court of competent jurisdiction and is currently serving the remainder of a 20 year sentence in prison. The judge reviews the brief and finds in favour of Government, approving the Ministry's revocation of citizenship. As this is a review and not a trial, there is no requirement that opposing counsel make any submissions. So the judge does not know that the actual act of terrorism was, in fact, "stone throwing". After this ex-citizen is released from prison to the West Bank or Gaza, they may now petition to regain their citizenship. After 20 years of imprisonment, it is not likely that their retirement fund will be brimming over with the savings of half a lifetime. How will this individual vet, retain, remunerate and properly prepare an attorney thousands of miles away in Canada to fight his case?

The Ministry asks a Canadian judge to review a brief for revocation of citizenship. The brief states that a 25 year old Canadian citizen was convicted of multiple crimes in a friendly liberal democracy, including a terrorist act that resulted in one death and several injuries, and providing material support for terrorism. He is currently serving the remainder of an eight year prison sentence. The judge reviews the brief and finds in favour of Government, approving the Ministry's revocation of citizenship. Not included in the brief reviewed by the judge is the fact that the citizen was 15 years old at the time the crimes were allegedly committed, and that he was captured in a war zone as the sole survivor of a group of combatants fighting the soldiers who were killed/injured. Also not included is the fact that he spent 10 years in pretrial solitary confinement; that during those 10 years, he was subjected to torture; was denied due process; that his confession was only obtained by the inducement of release to the Canadian judiciary; and that the trial was conducted extra-legally by the laws of the country trying him.

The information in a brief sent by the Ministry to a judge may not be complete. This lack of completeness may be due to a lack of information at the Ministry and/or because the Ministry cherry picked what information to include in the brief. There is no requirement for opposing counsel to appear at these reviews and, therefore, no venue for a defence to be made.

 

[Natan]

As for obtaining citizenship by descent, the most you can go back is your grandparents. Even then very few can actually get citizenship through grandparent.
Not sure why you even bring in the aboriginal issues. They have Canadian or American citizenship.

The way C-24 is written, an individual does not need to be in possession of another citizenship to lose their Canadian citizenship. It is enough if the Ministry <b>asserts</b> that the individual is eligible to receive a grant of citizenship from another country; or would be eligible to receive such a grant upon losing Canadian citizenship. The law permits a person to be rendered stateless, if the Ministry can <b>assert</b> that the individual is eligible for another citizenship. Further, upon being rendered stateless, the individual does not have to be deported from Canada if this is not possible -- there are many stateless people living in Canada (e.g., lost Canadians).

Imagine, if you will, the following extreme examples:

1. A 100%, full blooded First Nations woman falls in love and marries an Iranian man. Under the nationality laws of Iran, that woman automatically became an Iranian citizen upon their marriage, even though the woman does not know this. Under C-24, this 100%, full blooded First Nations woman could lose her Canadian citizenship and be deported to Iran, without her husband.

2. An Inuit man has 15 great great grandparents who are Inuit and one great great grandparent who is from India. Under the nationality laws of India, this man is eligible for Indian citizenship. Under C-24, this man, who is 93.75% Inuit, can lose his Canadian citizenship and be deported to India.

3. A Canadian of 100% English descent, with all eight grandparents born in Canada and not a single great grandparent born in Canada, could NOT be stripped of their citizenship under C-24.

The above are, admittedly, extreme examples -- but they are all <b>possible</b> under C-24. As you can see, individuals whose history in Canada reaches back millennia can be subject to loss of citizenship while relatively recent newcomers are exempted from such consequences.

 

[applicant314]

The Ministry asks a Canadian judge to review a brief for revocation of citizenship. The brief states that a Canadian citizen was convicted of a terrorist act in an Israeli court of competent jurisdiction and is currently serving the remainder of a 20 year sentence in prison. The judge reviews the brief and finds in favour of Government, approving the Ministry's revocation of citizenship. As this is a review and not a trial, there is no requirement that opposing counsel make any submissions. So the judge does not know that the actual act of terrorism was, in fact, "stone throwing". After this ex-citizen is released from prison to the West Bank or Gaza, they may now petition to regain their citizenship. After 20 years of imprisonment, it is not likely that their retirement fund will be brimming over with the savings of half a lifetime. How will this individual vet, retain, remunerate and properly prepare an attorney thousands of miles away in Canada to fight his case?

Absolutely ridiculous. I don't feel the urge of attacking Israeli soldiers, and lack complete understanding how one can justify this. I am aware that in some parts in the world, hatred against Israel goes as far as to not allowing any Israelis (or people who have been to Israel) to enter the country, but this is Canada. If you assume that you can attack the security forces of one of Canada's allies and go away unpunished: good luck. Why would a Canadian do such thing in the first place?

The other examples are way too far fetched. Canada needs to have the right to strip people from it's citizenship. Not just the number of people in Canada is growing, but also the number of Canadians who move abroad. Laws need to be updated accordingly, and this is what the conservatives have done. Even at the expense of one or two people who experience tough luck: Well, that's life. You can't make a law for 35mio people and assume it prevents the most ridiculous and bizarre serendipities from happening.

I am myself a dual citizen and fully support attempts to strip people of their Canadian citizenship, if they are found to be involved in terrorist activities and pose a threat to Canadian society. Strengthening Canadian citizenship is exactly that.

 

[ZingyDNA]

Hahahahaha sorry I have to laugh at this one. Are you sure India grants someone citizenship just because he/she has an Indian great grandparent? LOL

2. An Inuit man has 15 great great grandparents who are Inuit and one great great grandparent who is from India. Under the nationality laws of India, this man is eligible for Indian citizenship. Under C-24, this man, who is 93.75% Inuit, can lose his Canadian citizenship and be deported to India.

 

[screech339]

Hahahahaha sorry I have to laugh at this one. Are you sure India grants someone citizenship just because he/she has an Indian great grandparent? LOL

Yes, it is funny. This is a case of using extreme examples that hasn't happen yet. Similar to the Supreme Court of Canada making decisions based on a possible extreme hypothetical situation that hasn't happened yet and will probably never happen. I would rather the court make a ruling based on realistic scenarios and if there ever a time an extreme example did happen, the person can challenge the law and deal with it then. Not when an extreme example "Could Happen" in the future.

This is a case of a person trying to use extreme examples when it hasn't happen, or if it did, the person want to use the 1 person inconvenienced out of millions of people in Canada to justify repealing the reasonable and common sense law.

I suppose Natan is okay with Quebec separating from Canada over hypothetical 50% + 1 vote difference (I mean exactly 1 vote over 50%). This scenario can happen but it is very extreme.

 

[paras1991]

Its true, immigration policies has changed a lot with no importance given to unification of family. It takes like 9.5 years to sponsor your parents...its weird...you can't sponsor your brother or sisters who are dependent on you because of physical or mental conditions... However in USA u can sponsor them....

Now in order to sponsor your parents , you have to show the income for 3 years....20years of undertaking......

ok don't give the parents and disabled dependents any social security but atleast reduce the procesing time so that the families can be united.....

 

[screech339]

Its true, immigration policies has changed a lot with no importance given to unification of family. It takes like 9.5 years to sponsor your parents...its weird...you can't sponsor your brother or sisters who are dependent on you because of physical or mental conditions... However in USA u can sponsor them....

Now in order to sponsor your parents , you have to show the income for 3 years....20years of undertaking......

ok don't give the parents and disabled dependents any social security but atleast reduce the procesing time so that the families can be united.....

Yes it is true that it can take up to 10 years to sponsor your parents. This is purely due to the overwhelming high volume of applications being submitted with a limited amount of CIC staff to handle it. When you have a finite number of staff and applications continuing to come in far more than the staff can handle in a year, you do expect the processing to get behind. For example: let's say that CIC staff can only process say 5000 applications in a year. Meanwhile 10000 applications has been submitted in a year. That means 5000 applications get pushed to the following year. The next year another 10000 application come in. That means staff has 15000 application to process in a year (5000 from the previous year and another 10000) whereby 5000 applications get processed. Next year it repeats with a larger backlog. Hope you can see why the PGP has to be frozen for 2 years to allow CIC staff to catch up on the applications in process. Once the PGP reopened with 5000 cap, it allowed CIC staff to eventually catch up with the applications, removing backlogged applications, to the point that CIC can process 5000 applications in any given year.

As for sponsoring sisters/brothers, in my opinion, I will take sibling sponsorship any day over parent/grandparent sponsorship. At least with the siblings, they can actual find work and contribute to Canada economy and pay taxes. Parents/grandparents are the most likely to be staying home, contributing nothing to economy, pay no taxes (no work, no income tax), free babysitters, sucking free medical care at the expense of everyone else's taxes, when they have never contributed a single dime to cost of health care their entire lives before coming to Canada.

 

[torontosm]

ok don't give the parents and disabled dependents any social security but atleast reduce the procesing time so that the families can be united.....

Families can be united via the supervisa...PR is not a requisite for parents to come and live with their kids in Canada for extended periods of time. I am opposed to providing PR for parents because as Screech339 correctly mentioned, they are generally more of a burden to the healthcare system (and eventually the pension system) without contributing to the economy.