# Conservatives to debate treason law res'n at June convention



## The Bread Guy (31 May 2011)

> The Conservatives are to consider whether to declare that any Canadian who takes up arms against the military of this country or one of its allies should be automatically stripped of citizenship and be tried for "high treason."
> 
> The resolution is just one of dozens -on issues ranging from tax policy, to euthanasia, to prostitution to samesex marriage-that Tory delegates will discuss at a party convention in June.
> 
> ...


More from Postmedia News here.


----------



## Armymedic (31 May 2011)

> The Conservatives are to consider whether to declare that any Canadian who takes up arms against the military of this country or one of its allies should be automatically stripped of citizenship and be tried for "high treason."



As opposed to the fear mongering media; the person would be found guilty first, and then stripped of their citizenship by the Government.

It would be nice if the Government would actually use this law. 

Hmmm....Can't think of any recent examples of where though...    >


----------



## vonGarvin (31 May 2011)

If a natural-born Canadian, or naturalised Canadian were to be convicted of treason, I would oppose stripping citizenship.  Yes, it's either inherited through birth or earned through naturalisation, but I would be very hesitent to strip citizenship.  I think that such a move could precipitate a move down a very slippery slope.  Yes, put them in jail if convicted, or even reinstitute capital punishment (of which I am an advocate), but I would oppose stripping citizenship.


----------



## larry Strong (31 May 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> but I would oppose stripping citizenship.



I am curious as to why?


----------



## GR66 (31 May 2011)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> I am curious as to why?



I'd also be opposed to stripping citizenship.  What exactly would be the practical purpose?  Would you deport them?  To where?  I'm not keen on taking in someone else's cast-offs here in Canada and I can't see why other nations should have to put up with ours.  

Deal with them (severely) but it should be Canada that deals with them not a problem passed on to others in my opinion.


----------



## Redeye (31 May 2011)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> I am curious as to why?



The idea is foolhardy, basically.

You can't really make a good case to strip someone born in Canada of their citizenship, and if you create a law that somehow can strip a naturalized Canadian of their citizenship, you have basically created two classes of citizen, which I cannot see the Supreme Court finding to be harmonious with the Constitution.  Atop that I think there are implications that would be problematic with respect to international treaties to do with stateless persons.


----------



## jwtg (31 May 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> ....if you create a law that somehow can strip a naturalized Canadian of their citizenship, you have basically created two classes of citizen, ....



Probably more semantics than anything, but by removing their citizenship, you wouldn't be creating 2 classes on citizens- you would be removing people from the ONLY class of citizens and rendering them non-citizens.  I guess the question is, what do you do with them then?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 May 2011)

jwtg said:
			
		

> Probably more semantics than anything, but by removing their citizenship, you wouldn't be creating 2 classes on citizens- you would be removing people from the ONLY class of citizens and rendering them non-citizens.  I guess the question is, what do you do with them then?



Manning iceflows.


----------



## Redeye (31 May 2011)

jwtg said:
			
		

> Probably more semantics than anything, but by removing their citizenship, you wouldn't be creating 2 classes on citizens- you would be removing people from the ONLY class of citizens and rendering them non-citizens.  I guess the question is, what do you do with them then?



No - you'd be creating two classes of citizens in the sense that some would be subject to being stripped of their citizenship, and some would not.


----------



## helpup (31 May 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> No - you'd be creating two classes of citizens in the sense that some would be subject to being stripped of their citizenship, and some would not.



I get what your saying and pointing out but does that not advocate two differant punishments for what is essentially the same crime.  At least remove any chance of that person having a passport issued and put them on as many warning list as possible.  Too bad killing them is not currently a acceptable COA


----------



## vonGarvin (31 May 2011)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> I am curious as to why?


Very fair question, and I'll attempt to answer as clearly as possible.

For me, citizenship is something that cannot be considered lightly.  I became a Canadian Citizenship simply because I passed into this world in Canada.  Others earned their citizenship by immigrating and doing whatever it is they do to become a Canadian citizen.  If we grant someone citizenship, and then that person goes to a foreign land, for example, and engages Canadian Forces as an enemy, then part of the pact we have with them as a citizen includes our right to try them for the crime of treason.  I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that this is one of laws from the Criminal Code that can be applied irrespective of where they occur.  (Lawyers?  Correct me?)

Anyway, once bestowed upon a person, I believe that Citizenship should never be rescinded.  Once an individual is Canadian, then they should stay Canadian.  Even if we have to punish them (upon conviction).

One thing I would do, however, (if I were King of Canada), is to strip any other foreign citizenship.  EG: no dual citizenship.

I know that this doesn't fully clarify my thoughts, but my feeling is that if we feel we can strip citizenship, then what's next?  And for what reason?  I just don't like the slippery slope that could be used to threaten people with.  "If you don't stop, we'll take away your citizenship.."


----------



## Neill McKay (31 May 2011)

I'm not wild about the idea of taking away a person's citizenship either.  As others have said, what do you do with such people?  I can't imagine very many countries accepting them.  (Even Antarctica isn't an option -- permanent residents aren't allowed!)

Most convicted criminals will, at some point, have paid their debt to society.  Unless you're convicting someone of a crime for which you'd imprison them for life, you can't realistically apply a permanent sanction against them.

I'm also not comfortable with the camel's nose I see here.  If we can take away citizenship for one offence, how long until the list starts to grow?  (Surely we'd find it tempting to be the only country in the world that does not have any murderers, for example.)


----------



## Pusser (31 May 2011)

To echo what others have said, I too am firmly against stripping anyone of citizenship, with one clear exception:  If you lied or cheated in order to become a citizen, then your citizenship should be rescinded (not the same as stripped).

A problem arises when comparing natural-born with naturalized Canadians.  With a naturalized Canadian, you can always deport them back to their country of origin, but what do you do with the natural-born?  They cannot be deported, as there is no place to deport them to.  This in itself creates two classes of citizen, one that could be deported and another who cannot.  I am strongly opposed to creating two classes of citizenship as it should be a priviledge to be earned and cherished.  Once granted, it should never be revoked, otherwise it loses its meaning.  Whether we should raise the standards for naturalization, however, is perhaps a discussion that should be had.

I was not fortunate enough to have been born in this country.  I immigrated when I was 18 months old (well, I came along for the ride anyway), but I grew up in this country and have always considered myself Canadian.  I stood in front of a judge when I was six years old and swore an oath that I would be faithful and bear true allegiance....  I have never forgotten that and have always taken it seriously.  I grew up playing hockey and Canadian football (not that girly game the Americans play).  To classify my citizenship as anything less (which is what happens if you make it possible to deport me to my "homeland," but not others) than anyone else's citizenship, is beyond insulting, particularly considering that I have proudly worn the Queen's Canadian uniform for over 28 years.  If I can offer up my life in defence of this nation, I sure as hell have earned the right to stay here regardless of whatever I may do in the future.


----------



## larry Strong (31 May 2011)

Thanks to all for the insight


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (31 May 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> you have basically created two classes of citizen, which I cannot see the Supreme Court finding to be harmonious with the Constitution.



Remember that Parliament is in charge of human rights unless they choose to let the Supreme Court be in charge.  So far Parliament has decided it prefers the judgement of the Supreme Court to their own in all cases.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Jun 2011)

In keeping with all those opposed to stripping citizenship.

In past exile was an option because there were places where exiles could go and be forced/allowed to live on their own resources without the support of society and the protection of the law.  Unfortunately, since the terrestrial commons have all been claimed their is no place for an exile to be exiled.

If the exile doesn't have some citizenship he won't be admitted into any other country, meaning that we wouldn't be able to deport him and would be stuck with an even more "unhappy" individual.

No, the only real solution to treason is the old-fashioned one: a genteel hanging, followed by drawing and quartering and distributing gibbet sized gobbets of flesh for display at each provincial and federal legislative building.


----------



## Kat Stevens (1 Jun 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Very fair question, and I'll attempt to answer as clearly as possible.
> 
> For me, citizenship is something that cannot be considered lightly.  I became a Canadian Citizenship simply because I passed into this world in Canada.  Others earned their citizenship by immigrating and doing whatever it is they do to become a Canadian citizen.  If we grant someone citizenship, and then that person goes to a foreign land, for example, and engages Canadian Forces as an enemy, then part of the pact we have with them as a citizen includes our right to try them for the crime of treason.  I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that this is one of laws from the Criminal Code that can be applied irrespective of where they occur.  (Lawyers?  Correct me?)
> 
> ...



So you advocate on one hand what you condemn on the other?  I'm British  born, therefore automatically a citizen of the United Kingdom.  You would strip from me a birthright that you would not from a born Canadian for a treasonous act?  I served my adopted homeland honourably and well, and gave to it more than many "real" Canadians ever will, including my back, and a good portion of my brain.  A little rambly, it's late and Colonel Daniel and I had a summit meeting at my kitchen table.  I may be back to delete this on the morrow.


----------



## vonGarvin (1 Jun 2011)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> So you advocate on one hand what you condemn on the other?  I'm British  born, therefore automatically a citizen of the United Kingdom.  You would strip from me a birthright that you would not from a born Canadian for a treasonous act?  I served my adopted homeland honourably and well, and gave to it more than many "real" Canadians ever will, including my back, and a good portion of my brain.  A little rambly, it's late and Colonel Daniel and I had a summit meeting at my kitchen table.  I may be back to delete this on the morrow.


No, certainly not.  I wouldn't strip anyone of their citizenship, were I King.  I would only make it a prerequisite for anyone who chooses to pursue Canadian Citizenship that they renounce their "other" citizenship, be it from the UK, the US, Kazakhstan, China or whereever.  The immigrant who wanted to become a Canadian _citizen_ would make that choice.  The other option is to remain a "resident" or whatever.  My soon to be former Father in Law made that choice for himself when he moved to Canada in the 1970s.  To this day he is an American citizen, who happens to be a resident of Canada.

Should any person choose to become a Canadian citizen, I would bestow upon them every right and privelage and duty and responsibility that any other Canadian citizen would have.  
PS: No need to delete this post of yours, because I think it is a very fair question, and after all, though you and the Colonel had a meeting, being a future king, I prefer my Crowns to be Royal.   ;D

:cheers:


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Jun 2011)

A couple of thoughts:

1. How does one revoke the citizenship of someone who was born here? Are we to have something akin to Edward Everett Hale's _Man Without a Country_? and

2. While I agree with a legal requirement to renounce other citizenship and I think it should be an offence for the holder of a Canadian passport to hold any other valid passport, some countries do not allow a native born person to relinquish their citizenship - that's why some young men, especially, get a rude shock when they visit the country of their birth and are, on arrival, conscripted into the army, even though they left the country of their birth when they were infants. (It used to be a fairly common problem but I haven't read about it very much in the past twenty years or so.)

Perhaps we should rethink the _earned_ citizenship laws, perhaps we make citizenship too easy - but 99.99% of naturalized Canadians are good excellent citizens and do we really want to punish the majority for the sake of a tiny handful who abuse our hospitality? Maybe the answer is to be more selective in deciding who we allow to 'land' in this country in the first place. Perhaps we should revise the passport laws to, at least, make it an offense to hold any other except a Canadian passport.


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Jun 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> 2. While I agree with a legal requirement to renounce other citizenship and I think it should be an offence for the holder of a Canadian passport to hold any other valid passport, some countries do not allow a native born person to relinquish their citizenship - that's why some young men, especially, get a rude shock when they visit the country of their birth and are, on arrival, conscripted into the army, even though they left the country of their birth when they were infants. (It used to be a fairly common problem but I haven't read about it very much in the past twenty years or so.)


Some countries would snag folks for military service even if they were _considered_ citizens.  I know of some born-in-Canada citizens whose fathers were Italian citizenss who, years ago, were visited by military authorities when visiting the old country.



> Perhaps we should revise the passport laws to, at least, make it an offense to hold any other except a Canadian passport.


Hmmm, maybe the same case could be made about countries who don't allow reunciation of their citizenship. If someone "has to be" a citizen, they may have to have a passport from such a country.  Happy to hear more from those who may be in this situation.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Jun 2011)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Some countries would snag folks for military service even if they were _considered_ citizens.  I know of some born-in-Canada citizens whose fathers were Italian citizenss who, years ago, were visited by military authorities when visiting the old country.
> Hmmm, maybe the same case could be made about countries who don't allow reunciation of their citizenship. *If someone "has to be" a citizen, they may have to have a passport from such a country.  Happy to hear more from those who may be in this situation.*




Maybe they have to face one of two prospects:

1. Hold only a Canadian passport and visit only a handful of the world's 200 countries - those that would never send them to the other country that claims them; or

2. If they feel compelled to visit that other country, then to travel, everywhere and exclusively, on that country's passport - in other words never exercise one of the rights of Canadian citizenship.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Jun 2011)

Like many other real and proposed laws, this is actually a problem in search of a solution.

Handguns have been heavily restricted in Canada since the 1930's, yet we continue to have laws and regulations added against firearms owners and ownership. Has any of this made guns or gun crime less common? Extra laws and regulations give the appearance of "doing something", but in the case of guns the actual results are negative.

The real answer is to look at existing laws and actually apply them. There is already laws and sanctions against treason in both the Criminal Code and the QR&O's (although "Death, or lesser punishment" is no longer on the books), and I'm fairly sure that a close reading of the existing law would apply to the cases or situations in question.


----------



## Redeye (1 Jun 2011)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> Remember that Parliament is in charge of human rights unless they choose to let the Supreme Court be in charge.  So far Parliament has decided it prefers the judgement of the Supreme Court to their own in all cases.



To make any changes, however, would essentially be a constitutional issue as it would involve Charter rights.


----------



## Redeye (1 Jun 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> No, certainly not.  I wouldn't strip anyone of their citizenship, were I King.  I would only make it a prerequisite for anyone who chooses to pursue Canadian Citizenship that they renounce their "other" citizenship, be it from the UK, the US, Kazakhstan, China or whereever.  The immigrant who wanted to become a Canadian _citizen_ would make that choice.  The other option is to remain a "resident" or whatever.  My soon to be former Father in Law made that choice for himself when he moved to Canada in the 1970s.  To this day he is an American citizen, who happens to be a resident of Canada.



We had an interesting discussion about this a while back, as I recall (we meaning the various contributors to this fine forum), and the issue of dual citizenship came up at length.

There is no practical way to force someone to renounce a foreign citizenship, because our laws do not impact those of other countries in any way, shape, or form.  At birth, I was a citizen of Canada (by virtue of being born here), as well as the United Kingdom by virtue of my father being a British citizen.  I hold - and use - passports from both countries and I find it very unlikely that any law obliging me not to do so would hold up to a constitutional challenge.  Certainly, I could claim to have renounced my UK citizenship, but the UK Government would a) not be obliged to accept that renunciation and b) would likely restore my citizenship on request.  Numerous countries officially ban dual citizenship but in practice it simply doesn't work, nor is it really a problem in the case of the many, many people who hold it.  To Tony's point above, renunciations aren't even possible in many countries (incidentally, the USA is one of them - it's nearly impossible to get rid of US citizenship should you wish to do so).


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (1 Jun 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> To make any changes, however, would essentially be a constitutional issue as it would involve Charter rights.



Which Parliament can over-ride in any case it chooses to do so.  Quebec does it regularly to keep les anglais in line.


----------



## Redeye (1 Jun 2011)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> Which Parliament can over-ride in any case it chooses to do so.  Quebec does it regularly to keep les anglais in line.



Such an override still requires constant renewal and is not immune to challenge.  The two clauses that allow that to happen are the two things that should be changed about the Charter, especially the Notwithstanding Clause which allows Quebec to get away with keeping discriminatory laws in place.


----------

