SpankyMcFarland Posted October 2, 2015 Report Share Posted October 2, 2015 (edited) Yes. Not the entire list, just the list off the top of my head: UK, US, New Zealand, France and (of course) Canada. Australia is passing legislation at the moment as well. In fact, Australia goes one step farther. They're looking at stripping citizenship for only sole Australian passport holders as well!! They have not done so to any Canadians yet that I know of. Edited October 2, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted October 2, 2015 Report Share Posted October 2, 2015 (edited) What will you do if they revoke the other citizenship first? Or if the other country sends them back? Edited October 2, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angrypenguin Posted October 2, 2015 Report Share Posted October 2, 2015 (edited) They have not done so to any Canadians yet that I know of. What, you mean revoke citizenship? Yes, they already have revoked citizenship from two people. If you mean revoke citizenship to a Canadian who only has a Canadian passport? They are trying. There's one convicted terrorist who was born in Canada, but whose parents are from Pakistan. So they are trying to get his Pakistani passport so they can yank the Canadian one. I'm all for that. Edited October 2, 2015 by angrypenguin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 2, 2015 Report Share Posted October 2, 2015 No link. But listening to ''experts'' on the radio and were talking about harper's law of stripping citizenship. Well it turns out that law has been a law since 1867, supported by all liberal and conservative governments. It was even supported by the old CFF ,but did not like it when it was used against commies. It was used against Nazis and the commies. So for people to say that this is all about harper ,well it is not. The difference is that the prime minister didn't get to decide, but rather it was part of a sentence handed out by the judiciary. I guess when Canada has a socialist government, you're going to be all gung ho for them labelling capitalists as enemies of the state and stripping their citizenship too, right? My point being that giving that power to a partisan position is so insanely dangerous that I can't for the life of me understand why anyone, especially small government conservatives, would want the PM to have that power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 2, 2015 Report Share Posted October 2, 2015 (edited) This idea that we have to accept everyone that comes here is a dangerous one. Not a single person anywhere said "we have to accept everyone." Literally no one said that. And that's what we call a strawman argument. You're arguing against accepting everyone, when no one ever argued that we should. Edited October 2, 2015 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 2, 2015 Report Share Posted October 2, 2015 (edited) Unlike now where most citizens must past the rigorous test of "did you slide out of a vagina in Canada?" And even then, you could be deported from this country and sent to a country where you have never lived, all because your parents came here and signed you up for citizenship in their homeland before you were even capable of making decisions for yourself. Edited October 2, 2015 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angrypenguin Posted October 2, 2015 Report Share Posted October 2, 2015 With all the talk on the other side about how it's not fair etc, imagine if a terrorist tried to kill you and your family, would you want them convicted and then thrown out of the country? I for sure know I would!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 2, 2015 Report Share Posted October 2, 2015 The issue is that we arrest them, but we can't keep them in jail! So, we might as well send them to hotbeds of terrorism where they can continue to plan and mount attacks. Great idea! /s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 2, 2015 Report Share Posted October 2, 2015 With all the talk on the other side about how it's not fair etc, imagine if a terrorist tried to kill you and your family, would you want them convicted and then thrown out of the country? I for sure know I would!!! Convicted, yes. Thrown out of the country, absolutely not. Why would I want them sent to places where terrorism thrives? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angrypenguin Posted October 2, 2015 Report Share Posted October 2, 2015 Convicted, yes. Thrown out of the country, absolutely not. Why would I want them sent to places where terrorism thrives? Because they then can't come and leave this country. They would have no right to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angrypenguin Posted October 2, 2015 Report Share Posted October 2, 2015 So, we might as well send them to hotbeds of terrorism where they can continue to plan and mount attacks. Great idea! /s You're assuming that is what they would do. I'm not so sure that if I wanted to blow up Canada, I'd be able to find enough people oversees that would have the same cause. Blow up the US maybe, but Canada? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted October 2, 2015 Report Share Posted October 2, 2015 You're assuming that is what they would do. I'm not so sure that if I wanted to blow up Canada, I'd be able to find enough people oversees that would have the same cause. Blow up the US maybe, but Canada? If they don't want to blow up Canada then why are we deporting them? If they want to blow up the USA then why are we deporting them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 2, 2015 Report Share Posted October 2, 2015 If they're criminals, then why aren't we using our judicial system as it was designed? The whole citizenship thing is entirely irrelevant and accomplishes nothing. Again, it's political rhetoric. It's a football for the Conservatives to kick around to give them the appearance of being tough on terrorism when in reality it does absolutely nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 2, 2015 Report Share Posted October 2, 2015 (edited) Why not use the judicial system as it was designed and then deport them? I don't care about the politics of it, or whose idea it is. It's just a very good idea, regardless of whose it is. Edited October 2, 2015 by bcsapper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted October 2, 2015 Report Share Posted October 2, 2015 With all the talk on the other side about how it's not fair etc, imagine if a terrorist tried to kill you and your family, would you want them convicted and then thrown out of the country? I for sure know I would!!! What if that terrorist was Canadian-born? What then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted October 2, 2015 Report Share Posted October 2, 2015 (edited) What, you mean revoke citizenship? Yes, they already have revoked citizenship from two people. If you mean revoke citizenship to a Canadian who only has a Canadian passport? They are trying. There's one convicted terrorist who was born in Canada, but whose parents are from Pakistan. So they are trying to get his Pakistani passport so they can yank the Canadian one. I'm all for that. No, what I mean is this. No country has revoked the other citizenship of a Canadian dual citizen yet e.g. Australian Canadian loses Australian citizenship. I can see a lot of work for lawyers here. Edited October 2, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angrypenguin Posted October 2, 2015 Report Share Posted October 2, 2015 What if that terrorist was Canadian-born? What then? Then see if they qualify for another passport, grab that and expunge their Canadian citizenship. If not possible, suck it up, can't win every battle Why not use the judicial system as it was designed and then deport them? I don't care about the politics of it, or whose idea it is. It's just a very good idea, regardless of whose it is. That's what they are doing...using the judicial system and letting them deport them (C24 allows them to do so) - and the ability to revoke citizenship has been around forever (treason etc), this is just adding terrorism. If they don't want to blow up Canada then why are we deporting them? If they want to blow up the USA then why are we deporting them? Huh? No, what I mean is this. No country has revoked the other citizenship of a Canadian dual citizen yet e.g. Australian Canadian loses Australian citizenship. I can see a lot of work for lawyers here. Yep. Lots of $$ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dialamah Posted October 2, 2015 Report Share Posted October 2, 2015 With all the talk on the other side about how it's not fair etc, imagine if a terrorist tried to kill you and your family, would you want them convicted and then thrown out of the country? Actually, no. I'd be all emotional and I'd want to kill them myself, engage in a little vigilante justice. And it wouldn't matter to me if these were terrorists, or just run of the mill murderers, their country of origin, or their skin color either. But I think you've just employed a logical fallacy called "appeal to emotion". It suggests a weak argument. Making a decision based on emotion doesn't always result in the best outcomes. To be consistent with my personal values, I would say that a Canadian terrorist who attempted to murder my family should face the full penalty of Canadian law, as a Canadian and within Canada's border. For any other crime committed by someone with dual citizenship, we don't send them away. Nor do we bring home Canadians who have run afoul of the law in other countries. There should not be a double standard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angrypenguin Posted October 2, 2015 Report Share Posted October 2, 2015 (edited) Actually, no. I'd be all emotional and I'd want to kill them myself, engage in a little vigilante justice. And it wouldn't matter to me if these were terrorists, or just run of the mill murderers, their country of origin, or their skin color either. But I think you've just employed a logical fallacy called "appeal to emotion". It suggests a weak argument. Making a decision based on emotion doesn't always result in the best outcomes. To be consistent with my personal values, I would say that a Canadian terrorist who attempted to murder my family should face the full penalty of Canadian law, as a Canadian and within Canada's border. For any other crime committed by someone with dual citizenship, we don't send them away. Nor do we bring home Canadians who have run afoul of the law in other countries. There should not be a double standard. And what if the judicial system cannot keep them in jail? One is eligible for parole next year. You want them anywhere near you? The extent of the law is IMHO, in this case, not capable of dealing with these morons who want to kill us. Edited October 2, 2015 by angrypenguin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 2, 2015 Report Share Posted October 2, 2015 It's a tremendous irony to me that the people who argue most strongly for two tiered citizenship are the ones who did the least to acquire theirs. Kinda like how most people admit newcomers to their family, huh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dialamah Posted October 2, 2015 Report Share Posted October 2, 2015 (edited) And what if the judicial system cannot keep them in jail? One is eligible for parole next year. You want them anywhere near you? The extent of the law is IMHO, in this case, not capable of dealing with these morons who want to kill us. Meh. I don't think it's such a black and white issue. I do know that you can go online and read Court decisions regarding reasons behind sentences. They often make a lot more sense than does the uninformed public, if only because they have details that we lack. Don't know where you are from but in BC there was a trial of a couple of terrorists recently. The media had a great time running video of the sting operation that caught these two, repeating over and over how they were going to blow people up at the BC Legislature buildings. The government was only too happy to share all the detail of their investigation. You could tell from the videos and audio that these two people were a few cards short of a deck. They were drug addicts, and no doubt they'd get high and sit on their couch (or street corner, wherever) and talk about how they'd like to show the government a thing or two, how they could get a bomb and wouldn't Canada Day be a good time to set it off? (Pass that pipe, do we have any money to get some more drugs?) But someone tipped off the authorities, and the cops head right in there - they give these people money, they help them find bomb plans, they help them get the supplies, they help them plan their trip to Victoria, they put them up in a hotel room. Then they arrested them and charged them with terrorism and patted themselves on the back. This couple was convicted, which is being appealed on the grounds of entrapment. I think they have a pretty good case. But if the conviction stands, I'd be interested to see what the judge decides for sentencing, and why. The guy who attacked the Parliament last year: a mentally ill drug addict. You can see why I might have a problem with the notion that someone is a terrorist just because the government says they are. Edited October 2, 2015 by dialamah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 2, 2015 Report Share Posted October 2, 2015 You can see why I might have a problem with the notion that someone is a terrorist just because the government says they are. There is this thing on the Left which demands excuses be found for Muslim terrorism here, even though the same acts take place all over the Muslim world thousands of times a year. Mind you, when such outrages happen in Muslim countries its blamed on western imperialism, too. It's a weird sort of determination to find something - anything - to excuse Islamic violence and pretend it has nothing to do with, well, Islam. Which is a religion of peace, don't you know... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dialamah Posted October 2, 2015 Report Share Posted October 2, 2015 (edited) There is this thing on the Left There is this thing on the right which demands that emotions rule intellect, that excuses be found to justify bigotry and cruelty, that facts be disregarded in favour of myth and hyperbole. Mind you, when their arguments are demonstrated to be false, they blame anything but their own flawed reasoning. It's a weird sort of determination to find something - anything - to prove they are the victims, even when they occupy the most powerful and privileged position in society. Which is a religion of peace, don't you know... Christianity is also a religion of peace. I wonder how the victims of abortion clinic bombings/shootings feel about the peace Christians offer them? Or the victims of the residential schools and the paedophile priests? Or the people in other countries being bombed by countries that claim Christianity as their predominant religion, and the one from which they claim to find their values? What I don't excuse is hatred, racism and bigotry and all that flows from it - which includes murderers whether they're terrorists or some white kid with first world problems deciding a gun was the way to deal with it. Edited October 2, 2015 by dialamah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 2, 2015 Report Share Posted October 2, 2015 Why not use the judicial system as it was designed and then deport them? I don't care about the politics of it, or whose idea it is. It's just a very good idea, regardless of whose it is. Because it's a punishment you can't give to someone who doesn't have dual citizenship. It means that those with dual citizenship are punished more severely for the same crime. And I don't believe a just system gives out different punishments to people for the same crimes based solely on where someone's parents are from. If somebody is a citizen here, then we punish them according to our laws and the same as we would punish anyone else who is a citizen here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted October 2, 2015 Report Share Posted October 2, 2015 The guy who attacked the Parliament last year: a mentally ill drug addict. You can see why I might have a problem with the notion that someone is a terrorist just because the government says they are. This. These days environmental groups are being labelled terrorists. Boycotts of Israel are considered hate-groups. Harper has effectively set the stage to stifle any dissent of his policies and the seals are clapping away. And to think just 10 years ago we were mocked about 'scary-Harper' tactics, but we turned out to be right. 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.