Argus Posted October 6, 2015 Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 Right....it was William Lyon Mackenzie King....Liberal ! Which means it doesn't count. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted October 6, 2015 Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 Yes. There were provisions for this already. War crimes, treason etc.Is that for those born in Canada and they commit those actions, or is that for those who commit those acts and then lie about them to become citizens? And do you have a source that treason gets your citizenship revoked? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angrypenguin Posted October 6, 2015 Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 (edited) Is that for those born in Canada and they commit those actions, or is that for those who commit those acts and then lie about them to become citizens? And do you have a source that treason gets your citizenship revoked? I'm pretty sure it's upthread. I'm multitasking, but I do know that for sure "War crimes" was a reason for citizenship to be revoked. I'm 100% sure Harper mentioned this in the Munk debates. Edit i'll spend the next few minutes Googling it Edit II: Ah, I mixed up treason. Treason/terrorism etc is part of C51: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/new-citizenship-act-allowing-revocation-of-canadian-citizenship-takes-effect-1.3093333 The stuff from the stone ages was mentioned in the Munk debates (war crimes was one of the reasons) As far as whether or not that has happened, I'm not sure. Edited October 6, 2015 by angrypenguin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted October 6, 2015 Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 Terrorism is not enough for someone to lose citizenship. All Canadians have the right to blow up people in this country. #righttokill So only some Canadians have that right? Good to know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted October 6, 2015 Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 I'm pretty sure it's upthread. I'm multitasking, but I do know that for sure "War crimes" was a reason for citizenship to be revoked. I'm 100% sure Harper mentioned this in the Munk debates. Edit i'll spend the next few minutes Googling it Edit II: Ah, I mixed up treason. Treason/terrorism etc is part of C51: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/new-citizenship-act-allowing-revocation-of-canadian-citizenship-takes-effect-1.3093333 The stuff from the stone ages was mentioned in the Munk debates (war crimes was one of the reasons) As far as whether or not that has happened, I'm not sure. Ok this law remains in force but every terrorist before committing acts of terror gives up his or her non-Canadian citizenship, what does this accomplish? One question though, I just read this little gem:http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-29/page-6.html#docCont and it seems initially you could lose your citizenship for a number of things (Warcrimes, treason, spying for the enemy etc…) Now the government of the day is adding on Terrorism sort of like what I have been saying, this adds other conditions to an antiquated law what is to stop them from adding something else at some other date? And nothing that PM Harper or anyone else can guarantee that someone at some point in the future might not make it for other crimes? And why not remove the ability to have dual citizenship? Why add laws to disparage immigrants and dual citizens when it would be easier and simpler to just ban dual citizenship? Does Canada throw a fake-citizen in jail for treason or just revoke their citizenship and send them to whatever country they have citizenship? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angrypenguin Posted October 6, 2015 Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 (edited) Ok this law remains in force but every terrorist before committing acts of terror gives up his or her non-Canadian citizenship, what does this accomplish? One question though, I just read this little gem:http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-29/page-6.html#docCont and it seems initially you could lose your citizenship for a number of things (Warcrimes, treason, spying for the enemy etc…) Now the government of the day is adding on Terrorism sort of like what I have been saying, this adds other conditions to an antiquated law what is to stop them from adding something else at some other date? And nothing that PM Harper or anyone else can guarantee that someone at some point in the future might not make it for other crimes? And why not remove the ability to have dual citizenship? Why add laws to disparage immigrants and dual citizens when it would be easier and simpler to just ban dual citizenship? Does Canada throw a fake-citizen in jail for treason or just revoke their citizenship and send them to whatever country they have citizenship? Thanks for finding that out. I thought Treason was a new provision of C51, guess not. Ok, what would prevent someone from adding other clauses? Uhh, votes, no doubt. Adding terrorism was controversial enough (when I think it should not have drawn up great controversy, but that's just me). I'm all for adding in rape provisions, mass manslaughter, but I suspect no MP would ever dare to add those. Also, one of the terrorists that have been convicted (part of the Toronto 18) was born in Canada, but their parents were from Pakistan. the government is looking to get him his Pakistani citizenship and to deport his ass. I'm all for it. Edited October 6, 2015 by angrypenguin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted October 6, 2015 Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 Yes. There were provisions for this already. War crimes, treason etc. OK, so when did that happen and to whom? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted October 6, 2015 Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 This law is politically motivated and has nothing to do with public safety. It was crafted to do the following: It maintains peoples' sense of fear of terrorism - even though we should be more afraid of getting struck by lightning. Anything that heightens fear of terrorism (or Muslims) helps the Conservatives. It's an effective wedge issue for the Conservatives. It's a distraction from Conservative corruption and their many, many other failures. The reasons that it won't improve public safety are: It's debatable exactly how dangerous are some of the people who have been convicted so far. Many are one or more of the following: children, mentally ill, misguided, drug addicts, blithering idiots. In the cases I've read, undercover police and paid informants supplied these people with weapons (real or fake), ideas and encouragement. If we ship them overseas, we lose the ability to keep track of them and there's no guarantee they can't assist or plan attacks. This law will alienate some (particularly Muslims because, let's face it, it's aimed at them) and could motivate some of the behavior that it's supposed to protect us against. Finally, it's the wrong thing to do; The law is too broad and allows the Minister too much discretion We're responsible for our own citizens. If we try to deport them, what makes us think other countries will accept them? In many cases, people are born in Canada with dual citizenship. We could be deporting someone to a country they've never been to and where they don't even speak the language. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biz Liz Posted October 6, 2015 Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 I think this is a bit extreme. People should have the right to travel to any country, so long as their stated intentions are verified. Imagine all the journalists and researchers who travel to almost every country to find the root causes of terrorism, a disease, or to do theses work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angrypenguin Posted October 6, 2015 Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 (edited) This law is politically motivated and has nothing to do with public safety. ---SNIP--- We lose the ability to keep track of them? Give me a break. LOL. Edited October 6, 2015 by Charles Anthony [---SNIP---] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dialamah Posted October 6, 2015 Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 Yes. There were provisions for this already. War crimes, treason etc. I didn't see that in the link you posted. In the original act, citizenship could only be revoked for misrepresentation. Treason/terrorism etc were added in 2014. That act also allowed for people committed of other offenses resulting in life imprisonment to be deported. Harper is pushing his tough on crime agenda, including mandatory minimums. It seems to me the stage is set for easily expanding the law to include offenses other than terror acts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 6, 2015 Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 I wonder how the left will deal with this one!Do you have the intellectual integrity for that to matter to you at all? Oh wait, I know already.Guess not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 6, 2015 Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 All Canadians have the right to blow up people in this country. #righttokill #righttotroll If you actually believe people are arguing that people have a right to blow up people in this country, then you're not paying attention at all to what people are saying. Even worse, you have absolutely no idea what the provision are in the act. Take the FLQ Crisis for instance. None of them would have lost their citizenship. It doesn't actually pertain to any crimes committed on Canadian soil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angrypenguin Posted October 6, 2015 Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 Do you have the intellectual integrity for that to matter to you at all? Guess not. No point if all I read is vitriol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 6, 2015 Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 No point if all I read is vitriol. But then you go and make up stupid nonsense that nobody's actually arguing. Nobody's saying people have a right to commit crimes. We're saying the have the right to all the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. They have a right to a trial. They have the responsibility to serve a sentence for any crimes that they commit. I can't for the life of me understand why small government conservatives would support the notion that partisan government ministers ought to have the authority to take away your citizenship, under any circumstances. It's like they literally haven't thought through how this could be expanded and used by governments that they don't support. No partisan political position should have that authority. It's antithetical to the notion of a just society. Arrest, prosecute, and punish the convicted. Everyone and I mean every last person in this country has the right to a fair hearing of the facts of their case and the charges brought against them. You take that away and start letting partisan politicians revoke people's citizenship and you're asking for all kinds of trouble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dialamah Posted October 6, 2015 Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 Also, one of the terrorists that have been convicted (part of the Toronto 18) was born in Canada, but their parents were from Pakistan. the government is looking to get him his Pakistani citizenship and to deport his ass. I'm all for it.Why not just have all babies born in Canada assigned a second citizenship, based on parents' origin. You know, just in case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angrypenguin Posted October 6, 2015 Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 Why not just have all babies born in Canada assigned a second citizenship, based on parents' origin. You know, just in case. Parents origin? Wouldn't we all be from Africa then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 6, 2015 Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 Why not just have all babies born in Canada assigned a second citizenship, based on parents' origin. You know, just in case. Step 1: Pass a law allowing politicians to revoke the citizenship of dual citizens. Step 2: Pass a law requiring people with foreign born parents to apply for citizenship in their parents' countries of origin. Step 3: ????? Step 4: PROFIT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angrypenguin Posted October 6, 2015 Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 Step 1: Pass a law allowing politicians to revoke the citizenship of dual citizens. Step 2: Pass a law requiring people with foreign born parents to apply for citizenship in their parents' countries of origin. Step 3: ????? Step 4: PROFIT Please tell me how a government could profit off of this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted October 6, 2015 Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 Party politics aside, and purely as a historical matter, who was the last Canadian born in Canada to have his citizenship revoked? Gerald Bull gave his up, didn't he? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted October 6, 2015 Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 Also, one of the terrorists that have been convicted (part of the Toronto 18) was born in Canada, but their parents were from Pakistan. the government is looking to get him his Pakistani citizenship and to deport his ass. I'm all for it.I am curious as to the reaction of people like you to say Pakistan doing it to Canada, sending their trash here? I don't get how an adult can think it is ok to dump our trash on other nations who are having problems as it is. Ok, what would prevent someone from adding other clauses? Uhh, votes, no doubt. Adding terrorism was controversial enough (when I think it should not have drawn up great controversy, but that's just me). I'm all for adding in rape provisions, mass manslaughter, but I suspect no MP would ever dare to add those.We have a conservative government, we have a problem they can't find a solution to and we have addition to an antiquated law that does absolutely nothing for our security but makes them look like they are "doing something". In a few years there might be another conservative government, or some other party would be in power and they would need a distraction or the appearance of "action" so they push through another amendment and at every step of the way it becomes easier to justify. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted October 6, 2015 Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 What happens to your assets if the gov decides you are surplus to requirements? Could be a nice little earner if expanded. And what about the group which got the most terrorism done here in the last 40 years - the Khalistan Skhs? How come there are no moves to strip citizenship from people who murdered hundreds? There are also some very dodgy Tamils in our midst. Something tells me we'll see no action on those fronts during the election.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angrypenguin Posted October 7, 2015 Report Share Posted October 7, 2015 I am curious as to the reaction of people like you to say Pakistan doing it to Canada, sending their trash here? I don't get how an adult can think it is ok to dump our trash on other nations who are having problems as it is. We have a conservative government, we have a problem they can't find a solution to and we have addition to an antiquated law that does absolutely nothing for our security but makes them look like they are "doing something". In a few years there might be another conservative government, or some other party would be in power and they would need a distraction or the appearance of "action" so they push through another amendment and at every step of the way it becomes easier to justify. AFAIK Pakiston doesn't have that law. Mind you, here's my thinking on this. If other countries are dumping their crap in Canada, I say we reciprocate. Otherwise, we lose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted October 7, 2015 Report Share Posted October 7, 2015 AFAIK Pakiston doesn't have that law. Mind you, here's my thinking on this. If other countries are dumping their crap in Canada, I say we reciprocate. Otherwise, we lose. That may be a recipe for both sides losing, and intervening countries too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angrypenguin Posted October 7, 2015 Report Share Posted October 7, 2015 That may be a recipe for both sides losing, and intervening countries too. I have no disagreement that both sides would lose. I'm just saying that if the shit hits the fan, I'd rather Canada not be worse off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.