Signals.Cpl Posted October 4, 2015 Report Share Posted October 4, 2015 If a cat has kittens on the stove, does that make them cookies?Where was he born? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dialamah Posted October 4, 2015 Report Share Posted October 4, 2015 Your brother is your brother for life no matter what a butthead he is.If our new friend turns out to be a butthead, though, I bet you'll drop him quick. My adopted brother is also my brother for life, butthead ot not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angrypenguin Posted October 4, 2015 Report Share Posted October 4, 2015 My adopted brother is also my brother for life, butthead ot not. If your brother tried to take over a plane to crash it into the world trade center, will you disown him if he, say, survived? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted October 4, 2015 Report Share Posted October 4, 2015 So he wasn't born in Canada? Where was he born? Toronto. That's sort of Canada. Khadr is a peculiar case for the right to be obsessed about. As we all know, there are so many extenuating circumstances to his story and trial , you'd think they would pick a more deserving villain to boo and hiss at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 4, 2015 Report Share Posted October 4, 2015 If a cat has kittens on the stove, does that make them cookies? You must be on the legal team Harper challenges the SCC with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 4, 2015 Report Share Posted October 4, 2015 Khadr has never been a Canadian, except on paper. No true Scotsman fallacy from our resident captain of reasonable and intelligent argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted October 4, 2015 Report Share Posted October 4, 2015 As long as you treat everyone equal I have no quarrel. I earned my citizenship, a lot of people born in this country have done nothing to deserve theirs aside from being born here and I don't see why I should be viewed as a lesser Canadian simply because some idiot somewhere wants to pretend that he is doing something. It is a law that hurts 7 million Canadians and yet will solve absolutely nothing. It should also be noted that most people with dual citizenship did not earn it either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dialamah Posted October 4, 2015 Report Share Posted October 4, 2015 If your brother tried to take over a plane to crash it into the world trade center, will you disown him if he, say, survived? Whether I disowned him or not it would be the same as I'd do for my 'blood' brother. No difference. That's the point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted October 4, 2015 Report Share Posted October 4, 2015 If your brother tried to take over a plane to crash it into the world trade center, will you disown him if he, say, survived? Would it make a difference if he was adopted or not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angrypenguin Posted October 4, 2015 Report Share Posted October 4, 2015 Would it make a difference if he was adopted or not? No Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted October 4, 2015 Report Share Posted October 4, 2015 It should also be noted that most people with dual citizenship did not earn it either. You had to meet some requirement to get it. When you are an adult and you come to this country you have to in most cases meet certain criteria, you need career, finances, language etc… at least when my parents came to Canada 20 years ago they had to meet all of the requirements before being considered… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted October 4, 2015 Report Share Posted October 4, 2015 No Then why does it make a difference if the guy is Canadian by birth or Canadian by immigration? Once you are Canadian, you are always Canadian unless you lied during the process. This law is useless because it is easily evaded and worse still there is no guarantee that it will remain exclusively for its original intended purpose. PM Harper may say any number of things and make any promises but if this law remains, in 20 years we will have a different PM, parliament and national and international situation. No one can give any guarantees that 10,20 or 30 years from now a PM will not decide to abuse this law in order to distract the electorate from economic or political troubles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angrypenguin Posted October 4, 2015 Report Share Posted October 4, 2015 Then why does it make a difference if the guy is Canadian by birth or Canadian by immigration? Once you are Canadian, you are always Canadian unless you lied during the process. This law is useless because it is easily evaded and worse still there is no guarantee that it will remain exclusively for its original intended purpose. PM Harper may say any number of things and make any promises but if this law remains, in 20 years we will have a different PM, parliament and national and international situation. No one can give any guarantees that 10,20 or 30 years from now a PM will not decide to abuse this law in order to distract the electorate from economic or political troubles. Why does it make a difference? Because international laws prohibit the government from making someone stateless. as I said before, it's not ideal, and I am for stripping someone who's only Canadian from their citizenship. As far as your comment about future PM's removing citizenship....remember, they have to be tried and convicted of terrorism first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted October 4, 2015 Report Share Posted October 4, 2015 Why does it make a difference? Because international laws prohibit the government from making someone stateless. as I said before, it's not ideal, and I am for stripping someone who's only Canadian from their citizenship. Who enforces that international law? If we make someone stateless who will come and "punish" us as a country for doing that? As far as your comment about future PM's removing citizenship....remember, they have to be tried and convicted of terrorism first. Thats my point, for now it might be like that but in 20 years its no guarantee it will take a conviction to revoke citizenship. Once you start revoking citizenship for the first few, other countries will wise up and make laws to prevent us from shipping our trash to them. Once that happens we will either see the law removed because it is useless or the process sped up. Can you guarantee that in 20 or 30 or 40 years this law will remain the same as it is now? Can you guarantee that in 20 or 30 or 40 years from now a PM will not change the law to revoke citizenship based on accusations or conviction in another country? Can you guarantee that the law will not be expanded to include other crimes? You can't and neither can PM Harper, because he may have that intention now but in 20 or 30 years he will not be in power. In a few decades, the economy might be in the crapper and a PM wants re-election but has no way to fix the economy so he expands this law to include other crimes as a way to distract the electorate. Since we cannot get a guarantee, selling out 7 million citizens for a false sense of security seems like a horrible idea in the short term and significantly worse in the long term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angrypenguin Posted October 4, 2015 Report Share Posted October 4, 2015 Who enforces that international law? If we make someone stateless who will come and "punish" us as a country for doing that? Thats my point, for now it might be like that but in 20 years its no guarantee it will take a conviction to revoke citizenship. Once you start revoking citizenship for the first few, other countries will wise up and make laws to prevent us from shipping our trash to them. Once that happens we will either see the law removed because it is useless or the process sped up. Can you guarantee that in 20 or 30 or 40 years this law will remain the same as it is now? Can you guarantee that in 20 or 30 or 40 years from now a PM will not change the law to revoke citizenship based on accusations or conviction in another country? Can you guarantee that the law will not be expanded to include other crimes? You can't and neither can PM Harper, because he may have that intention now but in 20 or 30 years he will not be in power. In a few decades, the economy might be in the crapper and a PM wants re-election but has no way to fix the economy so he expands this law to include other crimes as a way to distract the electorate. Since we cannot get a guarantee, selling out 7 million citizens for a false sense of security seems like a horrible idea in the short term and significantly worse in the long term. You do realize other countries already do this right? revoking citizenship for convicted terrorists? Australia is already looking at options to make someone stateless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted October 4, 2015 Report Share Posted October 4, 2015 You do realize other countries already do this right? revoking citizenship for convicted terrorists? Australia is already looking at options to make someone stateless. You do realize other countries stone rape victims? By your logic we should stone rape victims too because others do it. What does another country marginalizing a portion of its citizens for a false sense of security have to do with us? The same arguments that apply for us here apply there as well but the only difference is that I am not Australian and therefore I have no interest nor right to put myself in the middle of their purely domestic arguments. Ok, make them stateless, who will enforce that law? The UN? The US? Russia? Zimbabwe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angrypenguin Posted October 4, 2015 Report Share Posted October 4, 2015 You do realize other countries stone rape victims? By your logic we should stone rape victims too because others do it. What does another country marginalizing a portion of its citizens for a false sense of security have to do with us? The same arguments that apply for us here apply there as well but the only difference is that I am not Australian and therefore I have no interest nor right to put myself in the middle of their purely domestic arguments. Ok, make them stateless, who will enforce that law? The UN? The US? Russia? Zimbabwe? I remember reading it's the UN that would enforce the law. The countries that stone rape victims are not the ones I am referring to. France/UK as some examples do not stone their rape victims. Please try to be more sensible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted October 4, 2015 Report Share Posted October 4, 2015 I remember reading it's the UN that would enforce the law. The countries that stone rape victims are not the ones I am referring to. France/UK as some examples do not stone their rape victims. Please try to be more sensible. I don't really care if France/UK/Australia embraced this law, for me it is irrelevant because I will not live with the consequences of their decision nor can I change those decision. You are basically saying that we should do it because Australia is doing it and it seems to you like a good Idea, well some countries as I mentioned stone rape victims and homosexuals and some in our very own country agree with them. As for the UN, what on earth can they do to us if we made someone stateless? Will they invade us? Sanction us? Call us names? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted October 4, 2015 Report Share Posted October 4, 2015 I don't really care if France/UK/Australia embraced this law, for me it is irrelevant because I will not live with the consequences of their decision nor can I change those decision. You are basically saying that we should do it because Australia is doing it and it seems to you like a good Idea, well some countries as I mentioned stone rape victims and homosexuals and some in our very own country agree with them. As for the UN, what on earth can they do to us if we made someone stateless? Will they invade us? Sanction us? Call us names? Presuming Canada is a signatory to whatever conventions are in question (and I'd actually have to figure out which conventions apply), if someone were to be rendered stateless because their Canadian citizenship was revoked, they could challenge it in court (I understand that at least one of the people who have recently been stripped of Canadian citizenship is doing just that). In other words, the Canadian government is as bound by the treaties it ratifies as by national laws. If the court deems that the Government is going to render someone stateless, they will almost certainly intervene to prevent the Government from defying its international obligations. Revoking citizenship is not a new thing. Nazi war criminals who emigrated to other nations under false pretenses (false identities) have, when captured, had their citizenship terminated. So far as I understand it, they then regain their original citizenship at deportation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted October 6, 2015 Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 .Revoking citizenship is not a new thing. Nazi war criminals who emigrated to other nations under false pretenses (false identities) have, when captured, had their citizenship terminated. So far as I understand it, they then regain their original citizenship at deportation. Has the citizenship of a person born here ever been revoked before? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 6, 2015 Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 Has the citizenship of a person born here ever been revoked before? Looks like there was an automatic provision to revoke Canadian citizenship in the 1947 Act for anyone who voluntarily became the citizen of another nation and other defined circumstances. I assume that such revocation is no longer applicable since "dual citizenship" has been recognized. http://www.pier21.ca/research/immigration-history/canadian-citizenship-act-1947 This Canadian citizenship thing sure is complicated ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angrypenguin Posted October 6, 2015 Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 Has the citizenship of a person born here ever been revoked before? Yes. There were provisions for this already. War crimes, treason etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 6, 2015 Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 Yes. There were provisions for this already. War crimes, treason etc. You're missing the point. Those weren't put in by Stephan Harper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 6, 2015 Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 You're missing the point. Those weren't put in by Stephan Harper. Right....it was William Lyon Mackenzie King....Liberal ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angrypenguin Posted October 6, 2015 Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 Right....it was William Lyon Mackenzie King....Liberal ! I wonder how the left will deal with this one! Oh wait, I know already. Terrorism is not enough for someone to lose citizenship. All Canadians have the right to blow up people in this country. #righttokill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.