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

[Natan]

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

The nationality law of India extends eligibility to citizenship to the fourth generation, so yes, a single Indian great great grandparent makes one eligible for Indian citizenship.

Provisions in C-51 which characterize certain actions as acts of terrorism, even acts directed against economic interests where no one is physically harmed, seem to have been written specifically to address the civil disobedience and protest methodologies employed by First Nations. Thus, blocking an important road that harms economic interests declared by Government to be of a security nature, could, according to C-51, be classified as an act of terrorism. As many aboriginal Canadians are of mixed ancestry, it is entirely possible that a First Nations individual convicted of an act of terrorism under C-51 could also be deprived of their Canadian citizenship under the provisions of C-24.

If, as some suspect, these C-51 provisions were written with First Nations specifically in mind, then depriving First Nation Canadians of their citizenship becomes less funny and not so ridiculous as they may seem on the surface.

Would it not be better to perfect these laws to make sure these unfortunate acts of injustice do not occur, instead of cavalierly writing them off as "tough luck" for the hapless few who are so persecuted? Surely this fix would be low hanging fruit, as it were.

How many aboriginal Canadians have a Polish grandparent (that's all it takes to make one eligible for Polish citizenship), or an Irish grandparent?

 

[Natan]

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.

The question is not, do we support youth who throw rocks at Israeli authorities. The question is, is throwing rocks at authorities an act of terrorism under Canadian law?

The question is not, do we support minor soldiers who confess to murdering an allies' soldier. The question is, does Canadian law allow a conviction of terrorism against an individual where the prosecutor's only material evidence is a confession obtained by torture, 10 years of pretrial solitary confinement, and a complete lack of due process? Is an alleged act of war by a coerced non-uniformed child-soldier fighting in a unit of adult combatants against an invading army a "murder" under Canadian law?

 

[screech339]

The question is not, do we support youth who throw rocks at Israeli authorities. The question is, is throwing rocks at authorities an act of terrorism under Canadian law?

Why do you throw a rock at an authorities and see what kind of charge you will get? I am sure it would be nowhere near terrorism. And besides court has to follow a precedent. So if there was a rock throwing charge in the past, they can't assign terrorism to the same offense.

The question is not, do we support minor soldiers who confess to murdering an allies' soldier. The question is, does Canadian law allow a conviction of terrorism against an individual where the prosecutor's only material evidence is a confession obtained by torture, 10 years of pretrial solitary confinement, and a complete lack of due process? Is an alleged act of war by a coerced non-uniformed child-soldier fighting in a unit of adult combatants against an invading army a "murder" under Canadian law?

Why are you avoiding Omar Khadr by name in your example. We all know who you are referring to. I guess you didn't want anyone to remember the famous Omar Khadr at all, knowing it will tick them off and disagree with you.

 

[Natan]

Why do you throw a rock at an authorities and see what kind of charge you will get? I am sure it would be nowhere near terrorism. And besides court has to follow a precedent. So if there was a rock throwing charge in the past, they can't assign terrorism to the same offense.

Why are you avoiding Omar Khadr by name in your example. We all know who you are referring to. I guess you didn't want anyone to remember the famous Omar Khadr at all, knowing it will tick them off and disagree with you.

Under current Israeli law, throwing rocks at Israeli authorities is an act of terrorism punishable with up to 20 years' imprisonment. There is a bill in front of the Knesset to extend the punishment to 30 years. The Ministry's brief to the Canadian judge reviewing the case may simply state that the individual is serving a 20 year prison sentence for a conviction of terrorism. Because there is no venue for opposing counsel to submit a brief to this "review judge", there is no venue for the judge to receive information not provided by the Ministry. The Ministry's lack of information may be due to their own lack of information and not due to any untoward intention on their part.

--
This is very specifically <i>not</i> about Mr. Omar Khadr. This is about how C-24 <i>could</i> be applied.

 

[screech339]

Under current Israeli law, throwing rocks at Israeli authorities is an act of terrorism punishable with up to 20 years' imprisonment. There is a bill in front of the Knesset to extend the punishment to 30 years. The Ministry's brief to the Canadian judge reviewing the case may simply state that the individual is serving a 20 year prison sentence for a conviction of terrorism. Because there is no venue for opposing counsel to submit a brief to this "review judge", there is no venue for the judge to receive information not provided by the Ministry. The Ministry's lack of information may be due to their own lack of information and not due to any untoward intention on their part.

Israeli law is not Canadian law. So again, go out and throw a rock at an RCMP and see what kind of charge you will get.

This is very specifically <i>not</i> about Mr. Omar Khadr. This is about how C-24 <i>could</i> be applied.

Oh REALLY! The example you have given follows exactly what Mr. Omar Khadr went through, word for word. I mean, how else could you have come up with a very detailed example you gave. I guess you don't the name of Omar Khadr to backfire on yourself like Elizabeth May did.

 

[applicant314]

Under current Israeli law, throwing rocks at Israeli authorities is an act of terrorism punishable with up to 20 years' imprisonment. There is a bill in front of the Knesset to extend the punishment to 30 years. The Ministry's brief to the Canadian judge reviewing the case may simply state that the individual is serving a 20 year prison sentence for a conviction of terrorism.

I still fail to see why Canada has to specifically accommodate citizens in its laws, who have the urge to throw rocks at Israeli soldiers. This is way too absurd for anyone who does not think he has a personal score with that country. I would very much like Canadian authorities to investigate anyone who thinks he has to physically attack another countries' security personnel, regardless of which country it is. Canadian citizenship must not be a safety net, for people wishing to carry out violent attacks that might be interpreted as terrorism.

The entire immigration process relies on the interpretation of other legal systems to some degree anyhow. Someone with a conviction from his another country does have a hard time getting a work visa/PR/citizenship. That's nothing new. Life is hard.

 

[Natan]

Israeli law is not Canadian law. So again, go out and throw a rock at an RCMP and see what kind of charge you will get.

Under C-24, a conviction of terrorism in a foreign court can be used by the Ministry to deprive someone of their Canadian citizenship. The reviewing judge has only the Ministry's brief to rely on for their decision.

The question is, and has been, should Canada revoke the Canadian citizenship of individuals convicted for acts of terrorism by foreign courts? And if so, should Government be, in effect, the sole determinant of what information is used in a judicial review of specific revocations?

Oh REALLY! The example you have given follows exactly what Mr. Omar Khadr went through, word for word. I mean, how else could you have come up with a very detailed example you gave.

I am gratified that my example of what <i>could</i> happen has evoked a real world case in your mind. It sometimes helps to apply abstract, theoretical concepts to concrete, real life events. But as Mr. Khadr has not been subjected to proceedings to revoke his citizenship under C-24, my example, while reminiscent of his circumstances, is not about Mr. Khadr, it's about the possible consequences of C-24.

 

[Natan]

I still fail to see why Canada has to specifically accommodate citizens in its laws, who have the urge to throw rocks at Israeli soldiers. This is way too absurd for anyone who does not think he has a personal score with that country. I would very much like Canadian authorities to investigate anyone who thinks he has to physically attack another countries' security personnel, regardless of which country it is. Canadian citizenship must not be a safety net, for people wishing to carry out violent attacks that might be interpreted as terrorism.

The entire immigration process relies on the interpretation of other legal systems to some degree anyhow. Someone with a conviction from his another country does have a hard time getting a work visa/PR/citizenship. That's nothing new. Life is hard.

A visa applicant may hire an immigration lawyer and submit documentation explaining the circumstances of their foreign conviction. If the conviction is found not to be an inadmissibility offence under Canadian law, then it is removed from consideration. If it is, there is the possibility that the applicant can be rehabilitated under Canadian law. At any rate, the visa applicant has some level of due process and the ability to present evidence on their own behalf <i>before</i> a decision is handed down by CIC. The provisions of C-24 do not provide these mechanisms <i>before</i> depriving someone of their citizenship.

Further, the application of deprivation of citizenship is not fairly applied across the entire population. On the contrary, it divides citizenship into two classes: those who may be deprived of their citizenship and those who may not.

 

[screech339]

Under C-24, a conviction of terrorism in a foreign court can be used by the Ministry to deprive someone of their Canadian citizenship. The reviewing judge has only the Ministry's brief to rely on for their decision.

The question is, and has been, should Canada revoke the Canadian citizenship of individuals convicted for acts of terrorism by foreign courts? And if so, should Government be, in effect, the sole determinant of what information is used in a judicial review of specific revocations?

As far as I'm concerned, before a person can be stripped according to terrorism by foreign courts, they must meet Canadian standard of law. That include a Canadian judicial review of the conviction. That is the due processed. The judge can and will request all related material related to the said conviction. If the judge cannot get all materials to come to the same conclusion, the judge cannot declare that the foreign conviction is the same as ours. The minister cannot deny the judge's request. If the minister ever did deny the judge's request, he/she is not doing himself/herself any favours. In fact, if the minister wants to strip citizenship, the minister must provide everything. If the judge noticed any missing evidence or withheld on purpose by the minister, the judge can easily declare that terrorism charge will not apply. The minister cannot arbitrarily decide that the foreign terrorism conviction is the same as our terrorism law. That's the judge to decide. Not the minister.

I am gratified that my example of what <i>could</i> happen has evoked a real world case in your mind. It sometimes helps to apply abstract, theoretical concepts to concrete, real life events. But as Mr. Khadr has not been subjected to proceedings to revoke his citizenship under C-24, my example, while reminiscent of his circumstances, is not about Mr. Khadr, it's about the possible consequences of C-24.

So you are gratified that we have people like Khadr's family who hate Canada and any western way of life, preaching terrorism against western values, while leaching on taxpayer's dollar. Nice to know where you stand.

I tell you what. Next time we have another Khadr's case, or even when the Inuit lost citizenship due to an Indian great great grandparents as provided examples by you, let me know and we can deal with it together then since you actually have an actual case.

 

[screech339]

Further, the application of deprivation of citizenship is not fairly applied across the entire population. On the contrary, it divides citizenship into two classes: those who may be deprived of their citizenship and those who may not.

In other words, dual citizenship and those who do not have dual citizenship. That is what you are referring to, right? Come on, spell it out for what it is.

You do realize that owning dual citizenship is not a crime. It is in fact a luxury that a lot of lone Canadians do not have. If you want keep your dual citizenship, a luxury, you must respect Canadian citizenship that you have acquired. That includes being a law biding citizen. If you don't want to lose your Canadian citizenship at all, simply officially renounce all other citizenships. Once that happen, Bill-24 no longer applies to you. You can live the life of terrorism and still won't lose your citizenship.

 

[Natan]

As far as I'm concerned, before a person can be stripped according to terrorism by foreign courts, they must meet Canadian standard of law. That include a Canadian judicial review of the conviction. That is the due processed. The judge can and will request all related material related to the said conviction. If the judge cannot get all materials to come to the same conclusion, the judge cannot declare that the foreign conviction is the same as ours. The minister cannot deny the judge's request. If the minister ever did deny the judge's request, he/she is not doing himself/herself any favours. In fact, if the minister wants to strip citizenship, the minister must provide everything. If the judge noticed any missing evidence or withheld on purpose by the minister, the judge can easily declare that terrorism charge will not apply. The minister cannot arbitrarily decide that the foreign terrorism conviction is the same as our terrorism law. That's the judge to decide. Not the minister.

Unfortunately, the way C-24 is written, the sole source of information reviewed by a judge is the Ministry. There is no venue for opposing counsel to submit briefs or documents to the reviewing judge. Further, the judge may be satisfied with the brief received from the Ministry, completely oblivious that material facts are missing from the brief. The Ministry itself may not know they are missing material facts.

So you are gratified that we have people like Khadr's family who hate Canada and any western way of life, preaching terrorism against western values, while leaching on taxpayer's dollar. Nice to know where you stand.

Surely I have made my position clear enough to have created very large targets for everyone to aim at, without having to resort to ad hominem attacks.

 

[screech339]

Surely I have made my position clear enough to have created very large targets for everyone to aim at, without having to resort to ad hominem attacks.

I tell you what. Next time we have another case like Omar Khadr's, or even when the Inuit lost citizenship due to an Indian great great grandparents as provided examples by you, let me know and we can deal with it together then since you actually have an actual case.

 

[Natan]

...simply officially renounce all other citizenships. Once that happen, Bill-24 no longer applies to you.

Unfortunately, that is not true. If the Ministry can <b>assert</b> that you are eligible for citizenship in another country, they are free to proceed against your Canadian citizenship under C-24. Many countries allow resumption of citizenship after renunciation, like Canada does. Perhaps an individual is eligible for another citizenship that they are unaware of (e.g., Accidental Americans).

 

[screech339]

Unfortunately, that is not true. If the Ministry can <b>assert</b> that you are eligible for citizenship in another country, they are free to proceed against your Canadian citizenship under C-24. Many countries allow resumption of citizenship after renunciation, like Canada does. Perhaps an individual is eligible for another citizenship that they are unaware of (e.g., Accidental Americans).

All you have to do is officially renounce all citizenships, even before committing a life of crime. It is not that hard. Once you get the official renouncement papers, you have proof that you cannot get another citizenship.

Yes, Accidental Americans. Those that was born in US with AMERICAN birth certificate. How can you be not know you are American? How can you not know that it is possible that you are American if you born in Canada to American parent/s?

Yes, While many countries allow resumption of citizenship, they will NOT allow resumption of citizenship if you have a terrorism conviction (threat to national security), like Canada does.

 

[Natan]

Yes, While many countries allow resumption of citizenship, they will NOT allow resumption of citizenship if you have a terrorism conviction (threat to national security)...

Unfortunately, this is not true. There are many countries beholden to larger countries through the mechanisms of debt. They are, in effect, forced to accept deportees who are eligible for citizenship regardless of their crimes (Jamaica being a prime example). There are other countries who lack a state government strong enough to prevent receiving unwanted deportees (Somalia comes to mind). There are yet other countries whose policy is to accept deportees regardless of the crimes they may have been convicted of elsewhere (e.g., Iran).

Let's remember that the Ministry need only <b>assert</b> one is eligible for citizenship elsewhere. It is up to the person being so deprived to <b>prove to the Ministry's satisfaction</b> that they cannot obtain citizenship elsewhere. Proving a negative, especially in a legal setting, is not an easy matter; and the Ministry is hardly an impartial party, acting, as they are, as prosecutorial agents of the state intent upon depriving one of one's Canadian citizenship.