Politics in 2016

[Remius]

Let me see?  Did you read your own words?

Once again:

Will you stop painting everything with a broad brush to suit your views.  Your comments are absurd.  Stripping of one's citizenship WOULD NOT be for committing just ANY crime.  It has already been established that the intent is that revocation would be aimed at those who commit VIOLENT CRIME or ACTS of TERRORISM.

I think you are still misreading his post.

 

[jmt18325]

Do you think Canadians should lose their citizenship under specific circumstances?

No

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Terrorism is a police matter...

If only it was that simple, clean and bloodless.  Terrorism is a WORLD matter in this day and age.

 

[George Wallace]

I think you are still misreading his post.

I don't think "no matter the crime they committed" can be interpreted in any other manner than a broad brush painting of the matter.  It is a "fear mongering" tactic to have the less enlightened agree to your side of an argument; a complete falsehood and lie to shift opinion. 

I do have to ask Kilo the same question that Jarnhamar just asked:

Do you think Canadians should lose their citizenship under specific circumstances?

Sorry if I do not fall for the absurd comment: "A Canadian is a Canadian, is a Canadian."

Those who mouth those words, also will never mouth the words: "A terrorist is a terrorist, is a terrorist."  The failure to acknowledge the fact that there are "evil" people in the world who want to bring about our destruction is so naive on their part.  That problem can not be ignored in the hope that it will just go away; it won't.

 

[Remius]

Here is a more important question.  Should all Canadians be equal before the law?

 

[George Wallace]

No

And can you explain your stand?  Is Canadian Citizenship a "RIGHT" or a "PRIVILEGE"? 

 

[Loachman]

I will admit to mixed opinions regarding stripping citizenship.

I do not believe that those who commit terrorist attacks - really, acts of treason - and who have attained citizenship by naturalization are worthy of retaining that citizenship. Stripping it from them, however, is unfair as it cannot be stripped from those whose citizenship derives rom being born here. Punishment for crimes must be equally applied. One standard for all.

For all that I disagree with Kilo and Altair, they do make some valid points from time-to-time and it is worth considering what they (and others) say without prejudice - which I must usually push myself to do.

 

[George Wallace]

Here is a more important question.  Should all Canadians be equal before the law?

All Canadians should be equal before the Law; Canadian Law.  Other forms of Law, religious or not, do not have jurisdiction here. 

When the question comes as to a "new" Canadian having betrayed Canadians, through "deception" in coming here to commit violent crimes or acts of terrorism; then they should be denounced for what they are -- NOT Canadian, nor accepting of Canadian values.  Our Law does cover what constitutes criminal and terrorist activities.  Sharia Law, nor any other perceived religious laws,  do not overrule or override Canadian Law.

 

[Kilo_302]

And can you explain your stand?  Is Canadian Citizenship a "RIGHT" or a "PRIVILEGE"?

You are still not understanding what I am saying. I will try and make this clear. I do not believe that ANY Canadian under ANY circumstances should have his or her citizenship revoked, as I do not believe it is effective as a preventative measure.

I am not suggesting that the Harper government intended to use this measure for ANY crime. I believe they intended it solely for "terrorism." However, for the reasons I initially posted, this is a symbolic law and not very practical. It's designed to rile people up, and put the Liberals (or the NDP) in a position where it appears they're "siding with the terrorists." And you have clearly bought it, hook, line and sinker.

First, the definition of "terrorism" is nebulous. Future Canadian governments on the Right OR the Left could attempt to further define it for their own ends, with obvious consequences. We've already seen the RCMP define certain environmental groups as potential "terror" threats, so it that should serve as an indication of what COULD happen if we had the wrong government attempt to apply this law.

Second, I believe Canadian jails are more secure than the jails these people might get sent to. I shouldn't have to explain this point further.

Third, ALL Canadians are entitled fair and equal treatment under the law. Even if someone has killed or maimed innocent civilians, while they might deserve to be tortured or receive generally shabby treatment, this is not the same as legally sanctioning it, which would be in effect, what the Canadian government would be doing. This last point is largely a legal precedence issue. Canada might find itself in a sticky situation if we start sending criminals abroad to be tortured.

Is this clear to you George?

 

[Jed]

All Canadians should be equal before the Law; Canadian Law.  Other forms of Law, religious or not, do not have jurisdiction here. 

When the question comes as to a "new" Canadian having betrayed Canadians, through "deception" in coming here to commit violent crimes or acts of terrorism; then they should be denounced for what they are -- NOT Canadian, nor accepting of Canadian values.  Our Law does cover what constitutes criminal and terrorist activities.  Sharia Law, nor any other perceived religious laws,  do not overrule or override Canadian Law.

I challenge anyone to logically argue against this statement.

 

[Kilo_302]

I challenge anyone to logically argue against this statement.

No one should have to challenge this statement, because this discussion isn't "Does Sharia Law apply in Canada?" No one is saying that. What people are saying is that once someone is a Canadian citizen, they are entitled to the same treatment as any other Canadian citizen. That point has been well argued from a legal standpoint.

 

[Altair]

I challenge anyone to logically argue against this statement.

a red herring?

Really Jed?

 

[Jarnhamar]

I do not believe that those who commit terrorist attacks - really, acts of treason - and who have attained citizenship by naturalization are worthy of retaining that citizenship. Stripping it from them, however, is unfair as it cannot be stripped from those whose citizenship derives rom being born here. Punishment for crimes must be equally applied. One standard for all.

I'm forced to agree that there should be one standard for all when it comes to punishments.  I'm okay with Canadian-born terrorists having their citizenship taken away too.

 

[Altair]

I'm forced to agree that there should be one standard for all when it comes to punishments.  I'm okay with Canadian-born terrorists having their citizenship taken away too.

making them non citizens? Citizens of no country? Ya...sure there is a rule somewhere where this doesn't fly

 

[GR66]

I tend to agree that "a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian" in the sense that once you have passed the hurdles to become a Canadian citizen you should not be treated any differently than any other Canadian citizen.  Place of birth at that point becomes irrelevant. 

You cannot deport a Canadian born citizen as they have no other home state to which they can be deported.  They are our responsibility to deal with if they break our laws.  A naturalized Canadian citizen should not be treated any differently in my opinion.  There shouldn't be two different classes of citizen.

I'm less certain of my opinion where an individual gains Canadian citizenship under false pretenses.  If someone lies in their application for citizenship and wouldn't otherwise have been eligible to be granted citizenship should the granting of citizenship be binding?  I think that is something that would probably have to be examined on a case by case basis.  Some applicants may "fib" or hide elements of their past out of fear of rejection but not for the purpose of hiding something that would have us deem them as unsuitable for citizenship.

Similarily I'm not certain of where I stand on dual citizens.  It's a tricky matter because it's not like we can simply outlaw dual citizenship because some countries don't recognize renunciation of their own citizenship.  In the vast majority of cases I don't think dual citizens should be treated any differently than any other citizen, but in some situations the case could be made that they are only Canadian citizens of convenience.  I could possibly be persuaded by arguments that dual citizens should have to maintain their citizenship in some way by maintaining ties to Canada. 

 

[Remius]

I'm forced to agree that there should be one standard for all when it comes to punishments.  I'm okay with Canadian-born terrorists having their citizenship taken away too.

If there was way to do that then yes.  But international law preventts us from making anyone stateless.  If the law is to be applied equally then stripping only those with dual citizenship or those that became citizens through immigration or what not goes against that principle. 

 

[Jarnhamar]

making them non citizens? Citizens of no country? Ya...sure there is a rule somewhere where this doesn't fly

Yup it sure is a rule. Just like there is also a rule about not setting bombs off and killing people.  Funny how people happy to break the rules are so quick to try and hide behind them eh?

If we don't execute them for treason then work out a deal with some shitty country to take them in and give them citizenship.

 

[George Wallace]

You are still not understanding what I am saying. I will try and make this clear. I do not believe that ANY Canadian under ANY circumstances should have his or her citizenship revoked, as I do not believe it is effective as a preventative measure.

I, however, do think that there are cause for the revocation of Canadian Citizenship for Violent Crime and/or Terrorist activities.  It is rather bold to say "NO" to the revocation of Canadian Citizenship, when discussing doing so for those reasons, while at the same time revoking citizenship of productive members of our society.  (One case, the former British couple who ran a Bed and Breakfast in Northern New Brunswick; and another case of the Lebanese immigrant who ran a chain of pizza parlors in Halifax.)

I am not suggesting that the Harper government intended to use this measure for ANY crime. I believe they intended it solely for "terrorism." However, for the reasons I initially posted, this is a symbolic law and not very practical. It's designed to rile people up, and put the Liberals (or the NDP) in a position where it appears they're "siding with the terrorists." And you have clearly bought it, hook, line and sinker.

I find that a very biased and flawed statement on your part, and showing your partisan views.  The Law WAS NOT DESIGNED TO RILE PEOPLE UP.  It is people like you, the Liberal Party and the NDP who riled people up with your partisan propaganda about the Law.  I would say it is you who fell hook line and sinker for a biased and false propaganda used to rile those ignorant of the actual wording to vote against the governing Party.

First, the definition of "terrorism" is nebulous. Future Canadian governments on the Right OR the Left could attempt to further define it for their own ends, with obvious consequences. We've already seen the RCMP define certain environmental groups as potential "terror" threats, so it that should serve as an indication of what COULD happen if we had the wrong government attempt to apply this law.

If an organization uses "terror" to push their agenda, what would you call them?

Second, I believe Canadian jails are more secure than the jails these people might get sent to. I shouldn't have to explain this point further.

It has already been proven in the US, that the Prisons are a breeding ground for the spread of radical religious philosophies.  You can look at statistics to read those facts, if you prefer. 

Third, ALL Canadians are entitled fair and equal treatment under the law. Even if someone has killed or maimed innocent civilians, while they might deserve to be tortured or receive generally shabby treatment, this is not the same as legally sanctioning it, which would be in effect, what the Canadian government would be doing. This last point is largely a legal precedence issue. Canada might find itself in a sticky situation if we start sending criminals abroad to be tortured.

ALL Canadians are entitled fair and equal treatment under the law.  Unfortunately, we see recent cases where some do not recognize the Infidel's Laws in our courts. 

Can you point to any cases where we have "legally sanctioned" 'torture' or 'generally shabby treatment' of anyone that is incarcerated in CANADA?

Is this clear to you George?

Your bias and prejudices, along with your agendas have long been clear.  Your blind acceptance of your views, not accepting valid counter discussion of your points has long been acknowledged here.  Sorry if I don't have "Blind Faith" in all that is said.

 

[Jed]

I tend to agree that "a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian" in the sense that once you have passed the hurdles to become a Canadian citizen you should not be treated any differently than any other Canadian citizen.  Place of birth at that point becomes irrelevant. 

You cannot deport a Canadian born citizen as they have no other home state to which they can be deported.  They are our responsibility to deal with if they break our laws.  A naturalized Canadian citizen should not be treated any differently in my opinion.  There shouldn't be two different classes of citizen.

I'm less certain of my opinion where an individual gains Canadian citizenship under false pretenses.  If someone lies in their application for citizenship and wouldn't otherwise have been eligible to be granted citizenship should the granting of citizenship be binding?  I think that is something that would probably have to be examined on a case by case basis.  Some applicants may "fib" or hide elements of their past out of fear of rejection but not for the purpose of hiding something that would have us deem them as unsuitable for citizenship.

Similarly I'm not certain of where I stand on dual citizens.  It's a tricky matter because it's not like we can simply outlaw dual citizenship because some countries don't recognize renunciation of their own citizenship.  In the vast majority of cases I don't think dual citizens should be treated any differently than any other citizen, but in some situations the case could be made that they are only Canadian citizens of convenience.  I could possibly be persuaded by arguments that dual citizens should have to maintain their citizenship in some way by maintaining ties to Canada.

By pointing out the aspects of 'Dual Citizenship' and new Canadian's that have been granted this citizenship by dishonest means you have effectively proved that 'A Canadian, is a Canadian, is a Canadian' is false.

 

[Altair]

Yup it sure is a rule. Just like there is also a rule about not setting bombs off and killing people.  Funny how people happy to break the rules are so quick to try and hide behind them eh?

If we don't execute them for treason then work out a deal with some shitty country to take them in and give them citizenship.

That's civilization bud.

People don't kill POWs or does that offend  your sensibilities as well?