I know what you’re saying but in this case, it borders on nitpicking. The fact is, the Conservatives passed a bill allowing the stripping of citizenship. Conflating the two bills is of little matter, unless you are an MP directly voting on the matter.
I’m not versed in citizenship law, to take what I say with a grain of salt.
The Citizenship Act, sets out that becomes a citizen by birth or by grant. It then goes on to set out how a person’s citizenship can be revoked.
Googling about comes up with articles talking about naturalized citizens (immigrants) potentially losing their Canadian citizenship, but I haven’t come across anything about natural citizens (born Canadians) losing their Canadian citizenship.
This interpretation seems to be based on the assumption that for citizenship to be revoked, it first must have been granted to an immigrant through a citizenship process, rather than granted by virtue of birthplace.
The thing is, the Act does not clearly set out whether revocation applies just to naturalized citizens or applies to both naturalized citizens and natural citizens. Is it possible that in the drafting of legislation intended to kick out foreign born terrorists, it is now possible to kick out homegrown terrorists as well? I’m not holding an opinion one way or the other, for I don’t know enough about this law and how it is interpreted, but I’m very curious as to whether we have two-tier citizenship in which newcomers can be given the boot, or if we have one tier citizenship, in which everyone can be given the boot.
Any thoughts on this? Pinpoint cites to the statute or to case law would help.
Not content with cashing in on a Gretsky photo-op, the Conservatives have now tried to link themselves to the Terry Fox Run.
That is, the Conservative party currently in an election, has promised to give this particular charity $35 million of our tax dollars, but ONLY if we elect them. Isn’t that generous of them.
Trouble is… The family of Terry Fox were not consulted, were not aware of it, and they DON’T think it’s great:
And longtime friend of Terry Fox, Bill Vigars, who organized public relations for the Marathon of Hope in 1980 was not very pleased either;
Oh, and the Terry Fox Foundation is not happy to be associated with a political party in the middle of an election campaign;
How scummy is this? Terry Fox is a national icon in Canada. If the Conservative Party had any shame, they would apologize to the family, the foundation, and every kid in Canada who has every taken part in the Terry Fox Run. I didn’t think this party could stoop this low. But just when you think they’ve lowered the bar as far as it can go…
That Terry Fox thing is pretty low.
There’s a fairly evenhanded background piece at voices-voix which notes:
Two separate challenges have been rejected. One by Rocco Galati and the Constitutional Rights Centre (dismissed because it was outside the court’s jurisdiction), another by David Jayaraj (dismissed for both standing and lack of evidence). Those descriptions of the dismissals are merely my understanding from reading the decision and various news articles. I am sure your legal training could give us a better description.
Another challenge is currently underway by the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, which that G&M article says is taking a different approach, “focused the charter challenge on many of the law’s lesser-known clauses”, namely the ones regarding new stipulations for citizenship applicants and new processes for revocation.
My only thought is that “born Canadians” can and does vary by statute. The case of the Lost Canadians is fairly well known. When I was applied for citizenship (or, I guess, acknowledgement of my citizenship) in 1999, I had to prove that I was born in wedlock, or else I would have been one of these. The situation was changed about 10 years later.
…and now Harper has come out and personally attackedthe Terry Fox Foundation, basically calling them liars.
I guess if the Conservatives get in, this foundation will be on the enemies list, and will be constantly hounded by Revenue Canada, just likeall the other ones on his hit-list.
Thanks, CarnalK. Those cases are interesting.
Since jus soli is not common law in Canada any more, and the current statute does not seem to differentiate between natural and naturalized Canadians when revoking citizenship for things like terrorism, so I suspect that either I am missing the obvious (which is likely), or any Canadian, natural or naturalized, could be given the boot in such circumstances. If this is the case (and I really don’t know if it is or is not), I wonder if it was deliberate or an oversight in the legislation?
From what I’ve seen, it seems the only barrier is that the person being booted has dual nationality - owing to our international obligations related to not making someone stateless. I too am willing to be corrected.
Somehow the Conservatives are currently leading in the polls, as of now, according to this website, which seems to update often. Though just eyeballing the chart as it looks at this moment, it still looks like a pretty tight 3-way race.
If Harper does not get a majority, he’s dead.
The Liberals have stated that they will not support a Harper minority government. The NDP says there is “not a snowball’s chance in hell” they will support a Harper minority government.
This means that in the event of a Harper minority situation, the government will fall at the earliest opportunity. Harper could potentially postpone the throne speech, and any confidence bills for as long as possible. But he could do this until perhaps January at the latest. The GG will have a choice after a vote of no confidence; Call another election (highly unlikely) or ask the party with the 2nd most number of seats to form government. At this point, either the Liberals or the NDP will seek the support of the other party. And they will get it. Because they will have made it VERY clear in the preceeding months that they are willing to work with each other as long as it keeps Harper out of power.
And he won’t get one. He may hang on to the hope that with a Harper minority the Liberals will support him rather than be seen as precipitating either another election or a Constitutional crisis, but that’s probably not likely to happen.
I also think that if he doesn’t win a minority at all, he’ll probably resign relatively soon, especially if he comes in third. It’s hard to blame such a major reversal of fortune on anything but yourself.
The Tories losing a confidence motion, asking the GG for another election, having the GG deny that request and ask the Libs or NDP to take a shot at things doesn’t really constitute a constitutional crisis. It’s the standard way minority situations are supposed to work.
Absolutely correct.
But that does not stop the Harper Party from trying to paint this as some kind of crisis. MY GOD! We can’t have parties actually cooperating now!
Lady Chatterley’s Clifford “had his crisis all too quickly,” but Stevie has been sitting on the throne far too long for his constitutional crisis.
There’s an idiot running in my riding who doesn’t know what Auschwitz was. She is the NDP candidate and the party is keeping her around. I was on the fence, thinking about giving Mulcair, a try but I can’t vote for a stupid loon. I kept thinking what if it was the Conservative candidate, imagine the slurs against them.
and the word from the NDP camp?
To be honest I’m not even sure this twit is telling the truth. We’re talking about a woman who has a high school diploma and two university degrees, who has worked in the community all her life, and who presumably has cable and watches TV and movies. It is basically impossible for an education Canadian to make it to her age and not have heard of Auschwitz. It is simply too well known a thing. What really happened is she made a touchy joke on Facebook and, when called out on it, very stupidly said “ummm… well, that’s because I’ve never heard of Auschwitz.” But of course she has.
I would respect Johnstone if she had come out and said, “Of course I know what Auschwitz was. I’m not an idiot. I made a joke to friends that, if you’ll read it, was really about sex, not the Holocaust. People make racy and offensive jokes to their friends all the time. I apologize if this has offended anyone but I will continue to make jokes to my friends, I’ll just be more careful about not posting them on social media.” I’d totally be fine with that. Anyone who says they have’t made jokes about this stuff to their friends or family is a damn liar. Hell, I tell a joke that references Auschwitz in my standup routine.
It just seems impossible in Canada for a political party to find 338 (or 308, or whatever the number of seats in play are in a given election) people to run for office without some of them turning out to be unbelievable nitwits.
I don’t know why this is. You would think the parties would have some kind of Nitwit Extraction Team (The Candidate NET) who’d go from riding to riding asking a series of simple questions:
- Do you know what the Holocaust was?
- Are there any videos of you online in which you strangle a puppy?
- Have you ever peed in someone’s coffee mug?
- Have you ever given a speech in which you referred to black people by (Here list a number of disgusting ethnic slurs)?
- Have you ever called Canada a “worthless fucking sewer”?
- Are you presently on trial for a criminal offense or do you presently reside in a prison?
- Are you a war criminal?
And so on and so forth. Jesus, just look at a person’s Facebook account, for Christ’s sake.
Fortunately all of the candidates in my riding seem like decent and intelligent people, so I can cast my vote for the party I want to win. Some people don’t have that luxury.
This was exactly my thought. The stupid lie is far worse than the joke.
Yeah, since I’ve been disagreeing with RickJay about Harper I should say he’s bang on about this incident. The dumb lie is far worse than the arguably tasteless joke. I don’t know what it is about some of these nitwits, either.
I think maybe part of the answer is that at least some of them are basically unwinnable throwaways in ridings that strongly lean to some other party. The more pertinent question perhaps is how come when said nitwits actually get elected, they so often turn out to be Conservatives – strident “pro-lifers”, evolution deniers, climate change deniers. I wouldn’t vote for this particular woman because she’s either not honest or else spectacularly uninformed, but the difference is that there’s no evidence that she would actually advocate regressive or damaging policy.
The thing is she is was definitely in play before this, in fact probably leaning her way since she has been on local tv for sometime. She could be lying, certainly, but it just feels like sloppiness all around. Mulcair said Alex Johnston was *our man * not even knowing her gender, so this whole candidacy is just pissing me off
If, say, the NDP were to win a majority, you would probably have in that group of 170+ people some honest-to-God socialists who advocated any number of ludicrous stupidities. I am sure if we were to comb though the ranks of NDP nominees we’d find some with some quite silly personal opinions.
But of course Thomas Mulcair isn’t actually going to let some campus Marxist who gets swept in by an NDP tide turn Canada into Cuba.