Easily. So you weren’t born in Canada - well the Harper Government can now rescind your Canadian citizenship if, let’s say you’re in Egypt on vacation and you got lost in a part of Cairo that you didn’t know was off limits to foreigners. If the Egyptian authorities suspect you of a crime and falsely convict you, that’s good enough for the Harper government to wash their hands of your appeals and rights as a Canadian. You’re second tier, so hand over the passport. Or at home in Canada, let’s say the company you work for has been suspected of stealing private information from databases and you’re named in a lawsuit even though you had no personal involvement in the scheme. The Harper government can deem your association in the indicted company damming enough to revoke your citizenship.
There should be only one Citizenship. As immigrants to this country the Canadian government has taken a risk for centuries and it’s worked extremely well. We can’t let a Xenophobic PM dictate first and second class Canadians. We did that in World War 2 when we interned Japanese Canadians. We are Canadians, and our government is expected to stand behind our rights as Canadians.
Exactly it’s not constitutional to treat Canadians differently.
The bill hands too much power over to the minister, including the power to grant citizenship to or revoke it from dual nationals. This measure raises major legal concerns and makes new immigrants vulnerable to arbitrary, politically motivated decisions.
Canadian law already includes mechanisms to punish people who commit crimes. It should not be up to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to make these decisions.
Another issue with the power to revoke citizenship for dual nationals is that it will result in two-tiered citizenship. Some Canadians could have their citizenship revoked, while others found guilty of the same offence would be punished under the Criminal Code.
Treating dual citizens differently and exposing them to potential loss of citizenship creates a double standard, which raises some serious constitutional questions.
The Story of Paul Watson is interesting. He’s a Canadian Environmental activist who isn’t liked by the Harper government so they took his passport away when he was detained in Germany. He was born in Canada. He has dual citizenship, the US government gave his passport back, but Canada…not so much
So the US does not have a problem with him, but clearly Watson’s rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms have been violated. Why is some bureaucrat making decisions that the courts are responsible for? The Harper government is something to fear.
The Germans seized both his passports. It looks like his Canadian one is now expired and he needs to reapply for a new one, like all the rest of us with expired passports.
Yeah, I call horseshit on “expired” Passport. It wasn’t then or else this would not have been reported :
In fact, if Watson would just “shut up” then the passport would have been revoked indefinitely. What the fuck are the “provisions” of Canadian passport rules that are so much more draconian than US passport rules, is what I’d like to know. Here’s a thought. US respects individual’s rights. Canada, not so much.
Well the Harper Conservatives are third place in the polls this week and Mulcair has yet to be vetted by Canadians as much as Harper or Trudeau so it will be interesting to see if the NDP can hang on to the lead. The Harper attack ads on Trudeau may have had impact a couple of weeks ago, but Canadians might be getting tired of the insults. It looks like the race is really tightening up.
I don’t think there’s been a three-way race this close ever before. If it stays tight as the election approaches it will be a historic first. If the NDP stays on top they will inevitably have to endure the usual “socialist” fear-mongering, especially from the Harper camp. Oh nooes – the stock market will crash, businesses will all move out, and your cat will run away from home! I don’t know if many folks realize that the NDP has at various times formed the government in 6 out of the 10 provinces; they totally dominated Saskatchewan politics for many decades, and it was their predecessor there, the CCF, that brought universal health care to the entire nation. That was under Tommy Douglas, regarded by many as “the greatest Canadian”.
Personally I look forward to Liberals and NDP battling it out for government and official opposition status, and Harper ending up with no status at all. This would be the second time in a generation that the Conservatives self-destructed. I suspect that anything less than a Harper minority government would bring calls for his resignation, and I also suspect that under those circumstances he’ll be happy to bugger off.
I’m more worried that Mulcair will pander to his Quebec base–and once more, we will have a PM from Quebec (shades of Mulroney and PET) who puts Quebec’s interests before those of the rest of the country.
Now, it may be true that Mr. Mulcair really does have the interests of Canada, as a whole, at heart. But his plan to repeal the Clarity Act tells me he cares more about Quebec than he does Canada. He will have to prove to me that he should be PM of all of Canada, and not just Quebec’s lapdog.
Regional favouritism is always a potential problem, but are you OK with Alberta’s lock on Harper, and how this has reflected in his policies? And which is worse? Look at the numbers. In the last ThreeHundredEight poll at the end of June, the NDP was leading in Quebec, sure, but they were only leading with 35%. They’re leading by more than that in BC – 38% – and have surged to 30% in Alberta and the prairies, so the west is not exactly unrepresented. Meanwhile Harper still totally owns Alberta with 46% and has 37% in the prairies. So if you worry about Mulcair possibly “pandering” to Quebec shouldn’t you worry even more about Harper actually pandering to the west – on issues like oil policy, environment, pipelines, and climate? Because he’s been doing this for years.
And I don’t think Mulcair’s Quebec support has much to do with the 50%-plus-one stance since I think the whole separation issue has been fading over the years. Look at the PQ’s disastrous loss. I think it’s more that Quebec’s social progressive politics just naturally aligns with the NDP.