Plus, although I am a foreign-born immigrant, in my case my citizenship is from birth (Canadian parent). Taking away a birthright citizenship because of geography of birth is indefensible.
Ditto, and I agree. One may or may not want to argue that maybe the bar for citizenship should be higher, but once achieved, the idea of different classes of citizenship is a road fraught with peril.
No. Just a busy divorced father running kids around and wondering what the hell happened to electronics manufacturing in Ontario. Oh wait, energy prices. My electricity bills in the winter (since there’s no natural gas here) run about $700 to $800 a month.
I’m not really feeling gruntled at the moment.
Well since you’ve got a free second here, why don’t you answer my question: where on the criminal scale should we be allowed to revoke citizenship?
I should note that someone could easily flout this law by giving up their citizenship in the other country they hold it, istm. The Cons seem to have made a point of avoiding leaving a person without a country in the crafting of this law - only allowing this provision for dual citizens…
Treason comes to mind.
So your idea would be to revoke citizenship from those who commit treason. Is that also the case for people whose only citizenship is Canadian, rendering them stateless, or do they get a lesser punishment?
Treason is already on the list. Is that your line in the sand?Or does murder qualify? Theft over 1000? Drug possession? Or maybe some link to the normal jail penalty, like anything more than “2 years minus a day”?
Perhaps Harper’s idea of potential destinations for deportation includes Ralph Kramden’s famous exhortation: “To the moon, Alice, to the moon!”
Look, I’m a native-born Canadian, but I strongly believe that anything that even remotely smacks of discriminatory classes of citizenship is, as I said, a road fraught with peril. If we have undesirables being granted citizenship (and in some cases I think we do) then the real question that should be asked is why the hell this is happening.
Agreed. But since I’m never going to commit a crime so heinous that my citizenship may be revoked, I frankly don’t care. If you do something so ridiculously unlawful then get the hell out of the country. Why should I care any more about you and your shitty crimes in Canada? Go away.
The thing is that it is not up to you to decide what is and what is not a crime serious enough to get you turfed. With the trained seal approach to government, all Harper (or whoever is the next prime minister) has to do is to change the penalty for mopery or whatever the flavour of the day is.
Bah. But that’s the same old “hidden agenda” argument, isn’t it? The hidden agenda that never materialized.
Look, I’ll be perfectly honest and state that I haven’t read the bill; has anyone else? I doubt we’re going to start chucking out immigrants for petty theft. I seem to recall that the bill specifically mentions acts of terrorism and/or treason.
As an immigrant, I’m not worried in the least about my rights as a Canadian citizen.
I disagree that’s the thing. Whether you can get turfed at all is the thing. Harper hasn’t passed a law that makes native born/non dual Canadians turfable, because that would be too obviously illegal and undoable. So once again, he passes a law that has to wind it’s way all the way up to the Supreme court to be shown illegal or undoable. All so he can get a few attaboys from his base. “Fuck the law and reality”, his loyalists say, “at least he’s trying!”.
nm
I’m definitely an Old Stock Canadian, my old family arrived in PEI in the 1730’s and we can trace an ancestor to the Fathers of Confederation. Another side of the family were a group of UE Loyalists. But that was a time when white men determined everything, and I am not looking back with rose coloured glasses. It was a shitty time for anyone who wasn’t a white Anglo Saxon male. Harper’s little phrases and deeds shows that his past keeps seeping out, and it isn’t pretty
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2013/12/16/Harper-Mandela/
Is it too much to ask that Canadians be worried about the rights of their FELLOW citizens?
That said, you’re probably right in that 99.9% of people complaining about C-51 have never read it. The fact that people are suggesting C-51 can be used to strip people of their citizenship is a particularly amusing example.
I challenge anyone to show me where in C-51 the government is newly empowered to strip anyone of their citizenship.
I get C-51 confused with C-24. C-24 is the one that can strip people of the citizenship for terrorism etc.
[QUOTE=C-24]
(2) The Minister may revoke a person’s citizenship if the person, before or after the coming into force of this subsection and while the person was a citizen,
(a) was convicted under section 47 of the Criminal Code of treason and sentenced to imprisonment for life or was convicted of high treason under that section;
(b) was convicted of a terrorism offence as defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code — or an offence outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would constitute a terrorism offence as defined in that section — and sentenced to at least five years of imprisonment;
(c) was convicted of an offence under any of sections 73 to 76 of the National Defence Act and sentenced to imprisonment for life because the person acted traitorously;
(d) was convicted of an offence under section 78 of the National Defence Act and sentenced to imprisonment for life;
(e) was convicted of an offence under section 130 of the National Defence Act in respect of an act or omission that is punishable under section 47 of the Criminal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life;
(f) was convicted under the National Defence Act of a terrorism offence as defined in subsection 2(1) of that Act and sentenced to at least five years of imprisonment;
(g) was convicted of an offence described in section 16 or 17 of the Security of Information Act and sentenced to imprisonment for life; or
(h) was convicted of an offence under section 130 of the National Defence Act in respect of an act or omission that is punishable under section 16 or 17 of the Security of Information Act and sentenced to imprisonment for life.
[/QUOTE]
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?doc=C-24&pub=bill&File=30#2
Someone hit it in one, thankfully.
But that rather well illustrates how little people know about the things they’re criticizing; you at least knew “oh, right, it’s the other bill” but few do, fewer still have read either bill or even an honest synopsis of it, and still fewer who criticize things like the Trans-Pacific Partnership know anything about it at all.
This is not to say I am in support of C-24 or C-51 but in principle I like to actually know what the hell it is I am supporting or defending, at least within the limits of my relatively low intelligence.
You’re a very well informed voter. Sadly, you represent a tiny minority. If everyone was like you, we would have MUCH better governance.
I just read that well informed voters will not be swayed by celebrity endorsements, like (for example), having Wayne Gretsky share the stage with you to say how great you are. However, poorly informed voters are swayed by such endorsements.
Somebody tell me why I should care about the political judgment of a hockey player, never a demographic of leading intellectuals at the best of times, especially after they’ve had their brains scrambled by a few too many body checks. So while he was here he could shoot da puck and score da goal, then later he buggered off and decided he prefers to live in the US, and now he’s going to come back long enough to tell us how to vote. How droll. 
Harper seems to think it’s a hot endorsement, though. Where he lives Gretzky is probably going to vote Trump for president.
FWIW, Tom Brady is endorsing Trump too.