WWWTT

From the above pasted comment, the supreme court has ruled that you can NOT be denied a passport based on the Canadian Charter of rights and freedoms. But it looks like the Canadian passport order was amended to deny someone based on security reasons, where the supreme court gave it's blessing. However, for me this raises the question of what a security threat is? As a side note, if you lie on your passport application or fill it out improperly, you will be denied one. WWWTT

You sure about that? The issuance of passports falls under the Royal Prerogative.[6] They are issued, in the name of the reigning Canadian monarch (as expressed in the passport note), according to the Canadian Passport Order. This Order in Council specifies grounds for which Passport Canada, a Special Operating Agency under Citizenship and Immigration Canada, can issue or renew a passport. Applicants must complete the required forms, which include the necessity of two passport photos and affirmation from a guarantor. Rules regarding renewals of passports and the eligibility of guarantors were last updated 1 October 2007, whereafter applicants may renew the passport using a shorter application form if: they are resident in Canada when they apply; lived in Canada and were at least 16 years of age at the time of their previous application; and are in possession of a Canadian passport that was issued under their current name after 31 January 2002, is valid for five years, and not damaged or reported lost or stolen. Further, a guarantor may be a Canadian who currently holds a valid, or no more than one year expired, five-year Canadian passport; has known the applicant for more than two years; is 18 or more years old; and were 16 years of age or older when they applied for their own passport. For citizens abroad, passport applications are forwarded back to a passport centre by the local embassies, high commissions or consulates. Passport Canada may revoke a passport or refuse to issue or renew a passport on grounds set out in the Canadian Passport Order, including such grounds as failure to submit a complete application, misrepresentation in obtaining a passport, and criminality. However, whether a Canadian passport may be revoked or refused on the basis of national security concerns has been questioned. In July 2004, Abdurahman Khadr was denied a Canadian passport by Governor General Adrienne Clarkson on the explicit advice of her Foreign Affairs Minister, Bill Graham, who stated the decision was "in the interest of the national security of Canada and the protection of Canadian troops in Afghanistan." The government invoked Royal Prerogative in order to deny Khadr's passport, as national security was not at that time listed in the Canadian Passport Order as a ground for refusal. Shortly thereafter, on 22 September 2004, section 10.1 was added to the order, which allowed the minister to revoke or refuse a passport due to national security concerns.[11] Khadr sought judicial review of the minister's decision to refuse his passport and,[12] on 8 June of the following year, the Federal Court ruled that the government did not have the power to refuse to issue Khadr's passport in the absence of specific authority set out in the Canadian Passport Order, but stated in obiter dicta that if the order were to be amended, Khadr would likely not be able to challenge the revocation.[13] In 2006, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, then Peter MacKay, again denied Khadr's application, this time invoking section 10.1 of the amended Canadian Passport Order.[14] Section 10.1 was later challenged in Federal Court by Fateh Kamel, whose passport had also been refused for national security reasons. On 13 March 2008, the Federal Court declared section 10.1 of the Canadian Passport Order to be unconstitutional and therefore invalid,[15][16] though the court suspended its declaration of invalidity for six months in order to allow the government time to amend the order. The federal government launched an appeal at the Federal Court of Appeal and a ruling handed down on 29 January 2009 overturned the lower court decision. The court unanimously agreed the denial of passport service on national grounds is in compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, citing the limitation clause (Section 1) as its main decision point.[17][18] Kamel launched an appeal in 2009 to the Supreme Court of Canada but the court declined to hear his case and thus ended the legality challenge to the Canadian Passport Order.[19] This was taken from Wikipedia WWWTT

Can either of you provide an example where this was the case? WWWTT

Here's some relevant information http://globalnews.ca/news/1575228/federal-governments-plan-to-revoke-passports-raises-human-rights-concerns/ WWWTT

Fair enough then WWWTT

Ok ok we agree on that part. But what about what the government is doing now? WWWTT

looks like you're right! Makes some sense too because there is the possibility you can flee. You still need to provide links, I'll let you off the hook this time buddy! http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpassport.gc.ca%2Fprotection%2Frevocation.aspx%3Flang%3Deng&ei=ELUgVMLWCKaIsQSH4ICoBA&usg=AFQjCNEb6fVEOQkVJFQhyNx6lCOfJcQUSg&bvm=bv.75775273,d.cWc&cad=rja WWWTT

Thanks for sharing that. I would assume that selling your passport would be a criminal offense. If so, a passport suspension would sound like a reasonable penalty if found guilty. WWWTT

Oh look at what I missed, this part of your comment is actually a very weak attempt at insult. Very easy to miss actually. Looks like you got a PISS POOR DEBATER tattoed on your forehead as well! Keep trying to rub it off budy, you're getting there! WWWTT

LOL Looks like the suspensions are starting to work, you didn't try insulting anybody! WWWTT

That depends on how you feel about this thread? If you agree with the government, then I hit the nail on the head, If you disagree, then i misread your comment. Regardless, the Canadian government pre Harper conservatives used to petition foreign governments who executed Canadians, strictly because there is no death penalty withing Canada! Just going from memory, I believe there were cases from the US China and Iran where this happened. WWWTT

Ok since i'm in this thread. I have suggested a heading dedicated to SEX! Ya you read that right, SEX! This is like a topic everyone hear is itching to talk about but it's too taboo! WWWTT

Agreed! You have a very valid point and if the moderators ignore your request I would call that proof that they are acting in a sexist manner! Stay vocal!!! WWWTT

Ya you see, this is why I ask for a link. I already know that in order for the government to do what you say, you have to be CONVICTED. In other words, you have to have your day in court (but probably several) I was hoping that if you did some homework, you can bring up your debating skills a couple notches. WWWTT

Please elaborate. I'm not asking for a name, just give us a sense of what happened thanks WWWTT

Link please! WWWTT

Agreed! WWWTT

Funny you say that? You seem to be under the impression that Canadian law applies OUTSIDE Canada. WWWTT

Please provide the link describing the reasons, why and under what circumstances. WWWTT

Weak argument/debate. Start picking it up! WWWTT

Ya then explain this! http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCsQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thestar.com%2Fnews%2Fcanada%2Fomarkhadr%2F2012%2F09%2F29%2Fomar_khadr_back_in_canada.html&ei=pFgfVIO2HMWXyASns4D4BQ&usg=AFQjCNFPV1LUsIeSjF3POtrZZBOFrZnF5g&bvm=bv.75775273,d.aWw&cad=rja If you want to keep debating, then you're going to have to start providing something to back up your claims beyond your own opinion! Like I said before, the government is going after a small tiny group that can't launch a counter battle in court, that simple. And the way courts go, whoever has the deepest pockets wins! WWWTT

Not aware of any declaration of war coming out of parliament? Anyways 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association. Do you see any problem with the new government rules yet? 6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada. How about now? From how the Canadian Charter of rights and freedoms is written, the government CAN NOT take away your passport for the reason that they have prescribed. They calculated that the people they are up against do not have the resources to launch a legal challenge. WWWTT